The entire movie is based on "Amazon Woman" who fight off Nazis

The entire movie is based on "Amazon Woman" who fight off Nazis.

The men are the "jealous" "evil" "violent" race

And the Amazon Wonder Woman are the "wise" creators of peace.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Troy
youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Don't remember any women starting a war. It's always been men who start shit

and?

Really activates my almonds.

IF it was WWI (I Haven't seen the movie nor read any spoilers) the you need a history lesson. there were no Nazis in WWI

Not even remotely true.

Not only that you can argue that Steve Trevor is the real hero of the movie

Stop being so insecure you little faggot.

> Nazis
and they wonder why Sup Forums is a joke

no woman but one THICC did
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Troy

i love how this movie is triggering all the right ''''''people''''''

You got it all wrong but at least you tried to understand it.

Maybe give it another go.

>Nazis
Wow....You really are fucking retarded to the point you don't even know the time period of a War and triggered at nothing.

women are literally the reason for drama and problems in the world

they cause men to fight over them, steal and even kill

Why don't you do something about it then?

>The entire movie is based on "Amazon Woman" who fight off Nazis.
It's WWI you fucking reprobate. Next time go on about the myth of German Villainy, then you've got me at your beck and call.

There weren't any stereotypical Hollywood Nazi officers, complete with monocles, cigarette holders, and arch aristocratic manner, with impeccable uniforms, an erect, arrogant bearing, and evil sneers or sinister smiles on their haughty faces, because this was The Great War (WWI), not World War II!

But he is right

>The Eternal Kraut isn't evil

Fuck off Hans

Hi James, why so racist?

As the result of losing two apocalyptic world wars, Germany has acquired a reputation as the evil nation of Europe, and, perhaps the evil nation of all time. Just mentioning the word "German" still brings forth an image in the mind's eye of robotic, goose-stepping storm troopers, under the command of stiff-necked Prussian officers, ready to march off to inflict gratuitous murder and destruction upon their peace loving neighbors. We have been brainwashed by relentless propaganda to regard the Germans as intrinsically militaristic, aggressive, brutish, racist and anti-Semitic, with a predilection for blind obedience to authority figures. Hundreds of Hollywood movies, relentless Holocaust propaganda, and countless books and magazine articles have permanently reinforced this negative image of Germany in the popular mind. Rational motives for the inexplicable horrors Germans are accused of having routinely committed are not required. It is axiomatic that their evil nature explains it all.

Brits probably did far worse things but got away with it because lol winners write history

pretty much

>mustard gas
>trenches
>no genocide
>no nukes
>kaiser not chancellor or fuhrer

if you think this was wwii you are a retard

>winners write the history
Consider the movie, "Schindler's List," by the Jewish director, Stephen Spielberg, for example. The Nazi commandant of the concentration camp (supposedly the Plaszow camp outside of Krakow, not far from Auschwitz), is standing shirtless on the balcony of his house with a hunting rifle over his bare shoulders. The rifle is equipped with a telescopic sight. In the movie, the house is located on a hill above the camp so that he can look down on the throngs of prisoners milling around in the compound below. He lifts the rifle to his shoulder and through the telescope begins casually scanning from one prisoner to another. The image through the telescope now fills the movie screen. The crosshairs of the scope stop on a randomly selected prisoner. He pulls the trigger and the prisoner drops to the ground, dead. The screen then cuts back to the Nazi commandant to show bored insouciance as he actuates the bolt of his rifle and casually raises it back to his shoulder. He fires again, and again a prisoner drops to the ground, dead. Bored with his "target practice," he turns his attention to the beautiful, sexy, naked woman lying on a bed just inside the house from the balcony. The woman is purportedly one of his Jewish housemaids selected from the camp, who also apparently serves as his sex slave. His face expresses disdainful, though lackadaisical, cynicism.

The point of the shootings, as well as bringing in the naked, Jewish housemaid, is to show the Nazi officer as totally depraved, without conscience, morality, or empathy for other humans; in short, a psychopath. It is presumed, of course, that the murdered prisoners were all Jews. Two popular Jewish themes are combined here: Nazi evil and Jewish persecution.

(cont.)

This episode is entirely fictional, based on a novel by Thomas Keneally, an Australian, who only visited the concentration camps once in 1980. No such actual event as described above has ever been recorded, yet the vast majority of movie goers swallow it whole and accept it as actual history.

The real Plaszow camp was located on the other side of a hill from the commandant's house, and completely out of sight from the commandant's balcony. It would have been impossible for him to shoot down into the compound as shown in the movie even if he had been inclined to do so, which is highly unlikely. The actual commandant of Plaszow, Amon Goeth, on which the character in the movie was based, lived in the house with his fiancé Ruth Kalder, with whom he had a child. Ruth said that they intended to marry but were unable to do so due to the chaos at the end of the war. She had her name and the child's name changed to Goeth after the war with the help of Amon Goeth's father. Amon Goeth was hanged after the war by the Polish government primarily for being a member of the Nazi party and a member of the Waffen-SS, not for shooting prisoners. Ruth described Amon Goeth as a cultured man who had a beautiful singing voice. Goeth did, indeed, have two Jewish housemaids, selected from the camp while he was commandant, but there is no information that he had untoward relations with them. That story was only included to add spice to the movie.

(cont.)

Another example is the movie, "Sophie's Choice," by another Jewish director, Alan J. Pakula, in which "Sophie" and her two small children are sent to Auschwitz (Auschwitz is the holy temple of Holocaust lore). During the "selection" process (the "selection" is now one of the "stations of the cross" of the Holocaust religion) immediately after their arrival, Sophie is told by a stereotypically evil Nazi officer (supposedly Dr. Joseph Mengele of Auschwitz notoriety) that she can only keep one of her children and that the other must go to the gas chamber. She is forced to choose which one to keep and which one to be sent to the gas chamber, hence, "Sophie's choice." The evil Nazi officer provides no reason or explanation for requiring one child to die or for forcing her to make this heart rending choice. That he is an "evil" Nazi is presumed to be explanation enough. This preposterous movie was based on a novel by the American Southern writer William Styron, who had no firsthand knowledge of the camps. Auschwitz was simply used as the setting for a tale which came out of his imagination. Nothing of the sort ever happened in real life. Yet, evil Nazi stories such as these have long been a staple in Hollywood. The movie-going public has been so conditioned by this poppycock that fiction has become fact in the public mind. We have all been brainwashed to accept such absurdities without skepticism. Germans are "evil," so they do "evil" things. No further explanation needed.

This thread is brought to you by:

The Marvel Pajeet Group New Delhi Branch

>stop being anti-semits!
Nice try tumblr

You've obviously never been part of an all male friend group that a girl joins.

You're right, OP is retarded. But since OP abandoned thread, I'm keen to see what Kaiser thread looks like. The image of Germany as a sinister, predatory, warlike nation only took root in the twentieth century. Nineteenth century Germany, by contrast, was seen as a place of peace and enlightenment.

youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc

explain your autism

>it's a "love is the answer" flick
Seriously?

Don't remember any women starting a civilization. It's always been men who start shit

Baldrick: The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

Edmund: Do you mean "Why did the war start?"

Baldrick: Yeah.

George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.

Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [aside, to Baldick] Mad as a bicycle!

Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.

Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.

George: By Golly, this is interesting; I always loved history...

Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that, sir?

Edmund: It was bollocks.

Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.

The Americans held a benign opinion of the Germans prior to the twentieth century. The American historian, Henry Cord Meyer, wrote, "...whether seen in their newly united nation [Germany was united into one nation in 1871] or in this country [German immigrants in the United States], the Germans were generally regarded as methodical and energetic people who were models of progress, while in their devotion to music, education, science, and technology they aroused the admiration and emulation of Americans."

In 1905 Andrew Dickson White, a noted American historian, educator, and United States Ambassador to Germany, wrote just nine years before the outbreak of World War I: "Germany, from a great confused mass of warriors and thinkers and workers, militant at cross-purposes, wearing themselves out in vain struggles, and preyed upon by malevolent neighbors, has become [after consolidation] a great power in arms, in art, in science, in literature; a fortress of high thought; a guardian of civilization; the natural ally of every nation which seeks the better development of humanity."

Hello, Kike. Now have a good financial year.

Jews hate Germans more than Palestinians, they'll spend their next 1,000 years trying to culturally bury them.

>pointing out blatant propaganda disguised as entertainment is autism now

The German people have historically made great contributions in every sphere of cultural, intellectual, and scientific achievement. In the field of music, there were such eighteenth century geniuses as Bach, Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, Shubert and Schuman, to name a few. This musical genius continued in the nineteenth century with the Strausses, Mahler and Richard Wagner. There were the literary contributions of Goethe and Schiller; the historical works of Ranke and Niebuhr; the philosophical studies of Kant and Hegel; and the great scientific contributions of Alexander von Humboldt and William Conrad Roentgen. These are only a few examples of a very long list. The Prussian system of higher education and the cultural flowering which characterized Prussia during the years following the Napoleonic wars greatly influenced both Europe and America. The American public school system as well as our university system was deliberately modeled after the Prussian public school system and university system. Germany was admired by the world as a center of learning, for its high culture and for its achievements in every field; but also for its culture of honesty, hard work, orderliness and thrift, which existed even at the lowest level of society.

British scholars and journalists had been very favorably disposed toward all things German, including their history, culture, and institutions throughout the nineteenth century. The highly respected Cambridge historian Herbert Butterfield commented extensively on Britain's high regard for Germany.

But the Jew will forever remain the eternal enemy of all mankind.

>Pre-WWI Germany was seen as a peaceful land of fairy tales and dreamy castles, and of industrious, law abiding, disciplined people, who dindu nuffin wrong. Not ever. It was Disney Land all year round.
A nineteenth century festival in a German town.jpg
Mayday in Germany.png
German farm girls headed for the fields.jpg

But then everything changed almost overnight with the outbreak of World War I. After the war began in 1914 a grotesque image of a rapacious, bloodthirsty and uniquely aggressive Germany quickly took form and became the stereotypical image of Germany in Europe and America.

After World War Two, Historian Harry Paxton Howard examined this transformation of Germany's reputation which began immediately after the start of WWI. It was made out, he said, that Germany was not only evil but had always been that way, and that Germany, contrary to the facts, had always been the historical enemy of Europe and America. He wrote: "Actually, in the literal sense of the word, the biggest job of revising history was done during the First World War when our 'histories' were completely revised to show that Germany had always been our enemy, that Germany had started the war in 1914, that Germany had even started the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, and that in the Revolutionary War we had not been fighting the British but the Hessians -- not to mention such things as the Germans cutting the hands off Belgian babies, instead of the Belgians cutting off the hands of Congolese. This was a real revision of our histories which has distorted the American mind for more than forty years." Harry Paxton Howard.

Nah, we barely even think about Europeans, outside of when they're trying to stick their noses in our business to protect their beloved Muslims.

All belligerents, of course, including Germany, used propaganda against their enemies, as all belligerents have done in all wars throughout history, but the propaganda efforts of Germany and the Central Powers were amateurish and ineffectual compared to the British. In their propaganda efforts, the Germans tended to appeal to reason instead of to the emotions. They never portrayed their enemies as bloodthirsty, inhuman beasts.

>Nah, we barely even think about Europeans,

dumb roastie

The first atrocity stories came out of the German march through Belgium at the beginning of the war. Germany’s purpose was not to attack Belgium, per se, but to pass through Belgium in order to outflank French defenses and then make a drive toward Paris. This strategy was known as the Schlieffen Plan, which the Germans believed was the only way to achieve a quick victory over France. Germany’s "violation" of neutral Belgium served as Britain’s pretext for going to war against Germany, though the decision to go to war for other reasons (mainly economic) had already been made. Belgium was only a pretext. To enter the war, it was necessary to win public support, and the propaganda opportunities resulting from Germany’s invasion of Belgium, as well as the fabricated stories of German atrocities in Belgium served that purpose. "Eyewitnesses" were found who described hairy knuckled Huns in Pickelhaube helmets tossing Belgian babies in the air and catching them on their bayonets as they marched along, singing war songs. Stories of German soldiers amputating the hands of Belgian boys were widely reported (reputedly to prevent them from firing rifles). Tales of women with their breasts cut off multiplied even faster. There were also tales of crucifixions of Allied soldiers. Europeans and Americans were more religious then than they are today and the crucifixion stories aroused outrage. (It should be mentioned that of all forms of evidence accepted in modern courts of law, eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable.)

>who was thatcher

Yeah this is a one-sided obsession

DOCTOR POISON A CUTE

(cont.)

But rape stories were the favorite of all atrocity tales. One "eyewitness" described how the Germans dragged twenty young women out of their houses in a captured Belgian town and stretched them on tables in the village square, where each was raped by at least twelve "Huns" while the rest of the soldiers watched and cheered. After being fed a steady diet of this kind of propaganda, the British public veritably demanded revenge against the loathsome Hun. A group of Belgians toured the United States (at British government expense) telling these stories to Americans. (Britain wanted to draw the United States into the war.) President Woodrow Wilson solemnly received the group in the White House.

The propaganda portrayed Britain as "a knight on a white horse" coming to the defense of violated, neutral Belgium. This was cynical manipulation of public opinion, of course, because if Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality, Britain would have done so without a second thought.

(cont.)

Germany angrily denied all of these stories. So did American reporters who were with the German army and knew that they were lies. But these denials did not find their way into American newspapers. The British controlled what went into American papers and it was the British who were generating the atrocity stories. To enhance the credibility of these fantastic atrocity stories, the British government asked Viscount Bryce early in 1915 to head a royal commission to conduct an investigation. The British government, of course, intended that Bryce would support this false propaganda, which he obediently did. Bryce was a well known historian with a good reputation in America. He not only had served as the British ambassador in Washington, but had written several complimentary books about the American government. The British knew that he was highly respected and admired in America, and that he had a reputation for rectitude and honesty. America would believe whatever he said. Bryce was also intensely loyal to his own country and therefore perfect for the job.

>autism is "pointing out blatant propaganda" now

(cont.)

Bryce and his six fellow commissioners, all lawyers, historians and legal scholars, "analyzed," if you can call it that, 1,200 depositions of "eyewitnesses" who claimed to have seen these German atrocities first hand. Almost all of the eyewitness accounts came from Belgians who had left Belgium for England as refugees, though some accounts also came from British soldiers in France. The commission never interrogated a single one of these eyewitnesses, but relied on their written statements instead (Shades of the Nuremberg Trials after the next war). Since there was a war on, there were no "on site" investigations of any reported atrocity. Not a single witness was identified by name, including the soldiers who had provided written accounts. Yet, the commission officially confirmed that all the atrocity stories, no matter how fantastic, were true. This bogus investigation was just another part of Britain's anti-German propaganda campaign.

The "Bryce Report" was released on May 13, 1915, and the British government made sure it went to every newspaper in America. The impact was phenomenal, especially coming just after the torpedoing of the British liner Lusitania which caused the deaths of 135 Americans. Americans from coast to coast were outraged. A wave of revulsion for all things German swept the country. Hatred of Germans reached fever pitch. Suddenly the American public was clamoring for war. (There is well founded suspicion that the Lusitania was set up as a decoy by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, deliberately exposing it to a German submarine attack for the purpose of bringing America into the war).

>All belligerents, of course, including Germany, used propaganda against their enemies, as all belligerents have done in all wars throughout history, but the propaganda efforts of Germany and the Central Powers were amateurish and ineffectual compared to the British.

This is all that needs to be said. Everyone did it. The British did it best. Better luck next time

(cont.)

But there were skeptics of the Bryce report. In England, Sir Roger Casement called the report a lie, and wrote a report of his own refuting it, though no one paid much attention to it. The American lawyer, Clearance Darrow, was so skeptical that he travelled to France in 1915 and searched in vain or a single eyewitness who could confirm even one of the Bryce stories. Increasingly dubious, Darrow announced that he would pay $1,000, equivalent to around $25,000 today, to anyone who could produce a Belgian boy whose hands had been amputated by a German soldier, or any other Belgian or French victim who had been mutilated by German troops. None were found.

The "proofs" provided by the Bryce Committee in its investigation, as well as the methods employed in gathering them, violated every elementary rule of evidence. Careful scholars have long since demonstrated that the entire report was made up of nothing more than distortions and outright falsehoods. But Britain was determined to pull the United States into the war and Bryce and his colleagues were willing accomplices in that effort. They justified their lies and exaggerations because it served the higher cause of Mother England. After the war most historians dismissed 99 percent of Bryce's atrocities as fabrications. One called the report "in itself one of the worst atrocities of the war." "After the war," recounts Thomas Fleming in his book Illusion of Victory, "historians who sought to examine the documentation for Bryce's stories were told that the files had mysteriously disappeared."

just link the fucking pdf you autist

>God of War reveals himself
>turns out to be an eternal Anglo
What did they mean by this?

Speaking of which, did you hear about the The Times printing about the German corpse factory?

So does anyone have sillygoy.gif?

A .webm is fine too.

Well Ares did turn out to be a Britbong instead of a kraut.

What was the fucking point of the Scotsman and Native American?

>Golda Meir
>Margaret Thatcher
>Indira Ghandi

Native American got them inside the trenches was supposed to help them go behind enemy lines but Diana got them through quicker.

Scotsman is comic relief.

Yes, it's men who always start shit. Wars, carnages, religion. civilization, arts, science...

Men are always starting shit.

?

The Amazonians were just as ignorant and violent as the men. Even though they were completely safe and at peace they still trained for war, why?

Please. You're trying hard with this one. There was no anti-man sentiment in this movie. Not a shred of gender war. Man is always referenced in terms of mankind. Arguing that women are just as violent as men is stupid.

Then why did they cast a racist war criminal to play Wonder Woman?

>g-germans are gud guys
>t-the holocust is just prupagandaaa

Sounds like pure autism to me.

So according to liberals this is how warrior race should looks like?

Doctor Poison a slut

>implying white men aren't responsible of 99% of awful violent insecure jealous things

the violently triggered autists from Sup Forums trying to raise pitchforks is just further proof

nice strawman
also
>off by one
what did Kek mean by this?

>ITS PROPAGANDA
>whines about one or two movies each years that star women or minorities
>meanwhile majority of movies push white males and white male stories

that's the real agenda being shoved down your throats. in reality white males are the shittiest most entitled most sociopathic pieces of shit.

>Even though they were completely safe and at peace they still trained for war, why?
To prepare for the return of [i]____[/i]. Among other reasons.

It was pointing out how Germans are often depected as over-the-top villains. See my post here:

Is she "our gal"?

Every second she was on screen all I could think about was how beautiful she is.

I dunno about all that, but man would I fuck an Amazon, like no questions asked.

There were no Nazis in WWI. If your next complaint is going to be "muh evil Germans" then the main villain was a Brit

I like how she's droped into this conflict without understanding any of its historical context, and is like: "I will fight this war head on, and free all people from the evil that enslaves their hearts to this wickedness!"

This thread is brought to you by:

The DC Chapos group of New Mexico branch
#BuildTheWall

Why is everyone okay with Wonder Woman being played by a white person?
What happened to the racial outrage all of a sudden?

>Why is everyone okay with Wonder Woman being played by a white person?

She is Jewish

/ourgal/ a cute CUTE

>There was no anti-man sentiment in this movie.
>ludendorf just a "ebli german" and also cuck
>all men showed as weak, stupid , miserable, jealous, but warmongering
>"Where I'm from we call that slavery" referring to the secretary
>"That's a No Mans Land! No Man can cross it!!" "I am no man"
>germans are basically stormtroopers who cannot do anything against feminazi (who actully only good guys according to movie plot and dialogues) in leather bikini and bronze spears
>Ares isn't wrathful and all-mighty god of war, it's just anglo with silly ginger mustache

As the war drew on, another fabricated story was widely circulated, again by theBrit. It was reported that the Germans were operating a "corpse factory" where the bodies of both German and Allied soldiers killed in battle were supposedly melted down for fats and other products useful to the German war effort. The Germans were accused of making soap out of human fat. Human skins were used to make fine leather goods such as lampshades, driving gloves and riding breeches. The bones of these corpses were said to have been ground up and used as fertilizer on German farms.

A detailed account of this so-called "corpse factory" appeared in the highly respected British newspaper, The Times, on April 17, 1917. According to the story, trains full of corpses arrived at a large factory. The bodies were attached to hooks connected to an endless chain. The article carefully described the process inside the corpse factory. "The bodies are transported on this endless chain into a long, narrow compartment, where they pass through a bath which disinfects them. They then go through a drying chamber, and finally are automatically carried into a digester or great cauldron, in which they are dropped by an apparatus which detaches from the chain. In the digester they remain from six to eight hours, and are treated by steam, which breaks them up while they are slowly stirred by the machinery. From this treatment result several products. The fats are broken up into stearin, a form of tallow, and oils, which require to be redistilled before they can be used. The process of distillation is carried out by boiling the oil with carbonate of soda, and some of the by-products resulting from this are used by German soap makers. The oil distillery and refinery lie in the south-eastern corner of the works. The refined oil is sent out in small casks like those used for petroleum, and is of a yellowish brown color." Note the meticulous detail.

(cont.)

The story was a total fabrication, but it was a "plausible" story, especially with all the detail, and it was not possible for the Germans to completely refute it while the war was still going on. After the war, of course, the story was exposed as the lie it was. No such corpse factory existed. It is interesting that the story of making soap out of bodies emerged again during World War II when the Germans supposedly made soap out of Jewish corpses. That lie is still widely believed and remains a staple of Jewish Holocaust propaganda. The "lampshades out of human skin" story also had its origin in World War I and emerged again during World War II when Germans were supposedly making lampshades out of Jewish skin. There was nothing to it, yet it also remains a staple of Jewish Holocaust propaganda.

What was the purpose of the 4 Einsatzgruppen units (each consisting of 500-1000 members of the SS and Gestapo) during Operation Barbarossa? How were these units different than the Wehrmacht's Security Divisions (Sicherungs-Divisionen) and Guard Units (Landesschützen)?

Why would Jews inflate the number of holocaust victims when reparations paid by West Germany after the war were based on the number of survivors and not the number killed?

What did SS and nazi officials in internal memos mean by the word "Special Treatment" (Sonderbehandlung) regarding jews in their custody?

How could the prisoners at the Bergen-Belsen be starving to death when 3 km away the food stores for the camp contained "600 tons of potatoes, 120 tons of tinned meat, 30 tons of sugar, upwards of 20 tons of powdered milk; cocoa, grain, wheat and other foodstuffs." Why was this food withheld from the starving prisoners?

If the Jews were evacuated "to the East" rather than being exterminated in Poland, what happened to them? Why have so many family members of those "evacuated" never heard from their loved ones again? Wouldn't they try to make some contact in the past 70+ years?

Of the approximately 1,300,000 deportees sent to Auschwitz, only 400,000 were actually admitted into the camp. What happened to the 900,000 who were not admitted to the camp? Were they sent home?

How plausible is it the allied governments trained and deployed thousands of staff to axis controlled territory during the last year of the war create and plant thousands of false documents, faked photographs, forged diary entries in the correct places so that they would be discovered by liberating allied personnel without their scheme being discovered and exposed over the past 70+ years?

How were the victims of the nazis Aktion T4 program killed? How were their bodies disposed?

some tasty pasta in this thread

>"That's a No Mans Land! No Man can cross it!!" "I am no man"
Is that really a line in the original version? my pleb friends wanted to watch it dubbed and she didn't say in my country's dub

>>meanwhile majority of movies push white numales and white numale stories
fix

>ludendorf just a "ebli german" and also cuck
But the main villain was a Brit
>all men showed as weak, stupid , miserable, jealous, but warmongering
No? Chris Pine wasn't. He even rescues all those people in the end
>"Where I'm from we call that slavery" referring to the secretary
She said she actually gets paid well and it's a decent job
>"That's a No Mans Land! No Man can cross it!!" "I am no man"
Made up
>germans are basically stormtroopers who cannot do anything against feminazi (who actully only good guys according to movie plot and dialogues) in leather bikini and bronze spears
She's a literal goddess. If we're going by movie logic then no shit she would stomp them. Also the main villain was a Brit
>Ares isn't wrathful and all-mighty god of war, it's just anglo with silly ginger mustache
Why are you complaining? I thought you hated the fact that the Germans were the enemies?

She says it's her duty, not "I am no man"

No, it's horseshit. Marvelfags are so buttflustered they literally have to make shit up to hate on a movie they didn't even watch

There were only 5 notable female royalties, and most of them were in the center of massive wars

Cleopatra was in the center of two roman civil wars
Elizabeth had both a civil war (where she illegally executed a queen because she was prettier than her) and constant international wars
Boudicca was probably fictional, but she still started a war against Rome

Fuck this women are peaceful meme. Even Hillary fucking wanted to start wars

>But the main villain was a Brit
So what?
>Chris Pine wasn't.
Oh yeah, jewish american (basically invader) who acting like numale who need feminism.
>She's a literal goddess
1) Pagan godess, which means she could be beaten by mortal
2) I talking about rest of feminazi
>I thought you hated the fact that the Germans were the enemies?
You was wrong, cuck

Ever notice the trend of WW1 movies and videogames lately?

They really want to push the narrative that "Nazis weren't just the only evil, Germans were ALWAYS evil! They deserve to be replaced!"

Or it might just be that it is currently the 100th anniversary of World War I?

Hillary gives me the fucking creeps. Theres just something about her, and the way she says things that doesn't sit right with me, and I can't put a finger on it.
Trump can eat shit, but it felt good to see votes actually matter, no matter how rigged shit was in one way or another.

I got a better film than I expected, and my standards wern't very high. I had popcorn and I liked whtaever the hell the subplot was going on between Dr. Poison and General Ludendorff. Spoilers: They killed a bunch of people who snubbed them in a way I found to be funny.

Oh, ok
Here she says something like "I must do it!", so it wasn't a big change after all