Winston Churchill

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

What do our UK Men think about this, this man, his actions?

Leading UK historian Niall Fergusion, in his book, Empire, says that by their actions in WW2, the UK paid for all of their sins. Empire, slavery, rampant capitalism, Opium Wars, etc. Churchill was the PM. Was he the man of the hour? or a self promoter?

What do the average British people think of him? What say you?

All opinions are welcome. Thank you.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

People on the top always get the credit for the sacrifices of the men at the bottom. Churchill didn’t save the free world. These men did:

Churchill himself was merely less incompetent and less worthless than any of the other options the U.K. had on offer. But those options were the unbelievably worthless Chamberlain and Wood, so that isn’t saying anything.

[Anonymous 7]

I can only go by what I have been taught (right or wrong), the West should change his name posthumous to Titan.

On a MGTOW note, he did not suffer wymuts graciously.

[GrumpyParticipant]

He fixed a bunch of liberals f~~~ ups, led his nation through a war and very hard times. It’s easy to denigrate him now in the luxury of a liberal infested world.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

the West should change his name posthumous to Titan.

Please explain this to me.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Joey AlfioParticipant]

sidecar is right our men in arms were the heroes, and without Russian advancement into Germany we and the Brits would have never stepped foot in Western Europe. 80% of the German war effort was shoved into the Eastern Front. I don’t think Western Allies could have faced the German war machine the same way the Russians have.

If anything, I don’t think the Russians get the credit they deserve tbh. It’s usually a topic highly overlooked and not taught in our education.

Δεν υπάρχει τίποτε αδύνατο γι’ αυτόν που θα προσπαθήσει. - Μέγας Αλέξανδρος

[Anonymous 7]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

the West should change his name posthumous to Titan.

Please explain this to me.

Correct or Incorrect I was taught that Churchill was a “Titan” of a man. I was taught that his iron like resolve and Katana sharp wit saved my bros across the pond.

History buffs can call BS if they wish but this is what I was taught.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(mythology)

[Joey AlfioParticipant]

I’m also proud we Greeks gave the Italians a good whooping, but then again, Italians were the most useless bunch in the entirety of the war. Germany could have chosen Albania as an ally and still do a much better job lol.

Δεν υπάρχει τίποτε αδύνατο γι’ αυτόν που θα προσπαθήσει. - Μέγας Αλέξανδρος

[Anonymous 42]

Winston Churchill was AWESOME! He embodied perseverance!

[OldBillParticipant]

Joey Alfio wrote:

without Russian advancement into Germany we and the Brits would have never stepped foot in Western Europe.

The Russians saved Germany from being nuked. If the Nazi regime had still been in business in August of ’45, the bombs would have fallen in Europe first.

And the various scientists who had cold feet about nuking the Japanese would have fought each other to be aboard the bombers hitting Berlin, Nuremberg, Essen, and the all rest.

The Red Army gutted the Heer. There is absolutely no argument there. The Heer, the land portion of the Wehrmacht, was predominately destroyed on the Eastern Front by the Russians. The Western Allies destroyed the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe because those were the portions of the Wehrmacht they could get at. It was a matter of geography more than anything else.

In the east, a tank, shell, gun, or bullet could be carried from the factories to the front. In the west, the same had to cross salt~~~er at some point. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and logistics is why Western Allies and Russians played different roles in the defeat of Germany.

Lend Lease, Stalin’s refusal to allow Western land and air forces to fight in Russia, and other issues are besides the point. The Russians beat Germany. What Churchill did was keep the war going long enough for first the Russians and later the US to join that war. If in 1940 the UK had sued for and received the “white peace” Germany was offering, the war would have ended before the Russians could join.

A war between Germany and Russia still would have occurred, it just would have been a different war which happened later.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[RomulusParticipant 4667]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

Leading UK historian Niall Fergusion, in his book, Empire, says that by their actions in WW2, the UK paid for all of their sins. Empire, slavery, rampant capitalism, Opium Wars, etc. Churchill was the PM. Was he the man of the hour? or a self promoter?

I’m not in agreement that there were sins to be paid for.

Second, I don’t agree with the notion that there is such a thing as a national guilt. I wasn’t alive during these time periods, how do I have guilt for what someone did 300 years ago because my skin is the same color. The West needs to rid itself of this ridiculous notion we have to pay anyone back for past events.

Mr. Fergusion’s premiss has no foundation.

With respect to WWII, I agree the Russians broke the back of the German army.

But no one was winning that war without the military output of the US. Even before the US got rolling in military production, its economy was somewhere like 30 times bigger than Germany’s. Maybe 40 times the size of Russia. Once we got on a war time footing, we could produce in a week what would take Germany three months. Plus we had all the oil.

Churchill was indispensable.

How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly normal human being.

[Billy&The CloneasaurusParticipant]

I agree with old bill for the most part. The Russians won WW2.

However…

Churchill came to power LONG before the Barbarossa Campaign. He was the first in the West to say f~~~ you to Hitler and stand his ground. This cannot be overstated or underestimated. Nazi Germany was the preeminent power in Europe at the time. The UK was massively overextended. Churchill told them to go f~~~ themselves. He rallied the British to fight it out, and hoped to god for a turn of events.

History provided Churchill these turn of events (Hitler invades the Soviet Union as planned in Mein Kampf…then the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour resulting in Hitler declaring war on the USA).

He was exactly the right man, at exactly the right time. He saved Western civilization.

I’m sure he’d be proud now (/sarc).

The answer, is no.

[OldBillParticipant]

Billy&The Cloneasaurus wrote:

Churchill came to power LONG before the Barbarossa Campaign.

Thirteen months. May of ’40 to June of ’41.

He rallied the British to fight it out, and hoped to god for a turn of events.

Yup, that’s why I wrote: “What Churchill did was keep the war going long enough for first the Russians and later the US to join that war. If in 1940 the UK had sued for and received the “white peace” Germany was offering, the war would have ended before the Russians could join.”

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Anonymous 1]

Churchill was played as were they all. The Milner Group out of Chatham House orchestrated the events surrounding both World Wars. The “War to End All Wars” to establish their One World Government.

[Billy&The CloneasaurusParticipant]

OldBill wrote:

Billy&The Cloneasaurus wrote:

Churchill came to power LONG before the Barbarossa Campaign.

Thirteen months. May of ’40 to June of ’41.

He rallied the British to fight it out, and hoped to god for a turn of events.

Yup, that’s why I wrote: “What Churchill did was keep the war going long enough for first the Russians and later the US to join that war. If in 1940 the UK had sued for and received the “white peace” Germany was offering, the war would have ended before the Russians could join.”

Thirteen months is an enternity when your country is under siege. My point was it would have made a big difference in history if some pussy was in charge of the UK…thus, props to Churchill.

I think we agree 100%. Western history is distorted. In the West, we are taught that the Western Allies won the war. That d-day won the war. 100% false. The war was already over by then – the Russians won, as you said, not even up for debate. The western front was a side show. WW2 in Europe was Nazi Germany vs. Soviet Union. We agree on this because it is a fact.

If the UK had a “Trudeau” in power, the west would have capitulated. Russia still would have won the war most likely, but the course of history would have changed. That’s why I give Churchill his props. He didn’t “beat” Nazi Germany lol. No…the west could not have defeated the Nazis without the East.

I missed your other statement – re: Churchill holding on – on my first read – my bad. Agreed.

The answer, is no.

[OldBillParticipant]

Billy&The Cloneasaurus wrote:

My point was…

… the same as mine.

The Russians beat Germany and Churchill kept the war going long enough for the Russians to be attacked.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Billy&The CloneasaurusParticipant]

@oldbill

I’m curious why you said the US scientists would have preferred to nuke Germany first.

I read many – and wrote a few – papers on this subject and came to the opposite conclusion. I definitely think that the US would have had no hesitation whatsoever on nuking Germany, but I disagree that they would have preferred to do so over Japan.

The racism of the time is why I say this.

The answer, is no.

[Billy&The CloneasaurusParticipant]

OldBill wrote:

Billy&The Cloneasaurus wrote:

My point was…

… the same as mine.

The Russians beat Germany and Churchill kept the war going long enough for the Russians to be attacked.

100%.

Churchill must have read or been briefed on Mein Kampf…yes, Hitler really IS going to do this as insane as it sounds. Good s~~~.

The answer, is no.

[OldBillParticipant]

Billy&The Cloneasaurus wrote:

I read many – and wrote a few – papers on this subject and came to the opposite conclusion. I definitely think that the US would have had no hesitation whatsoever on nuking Germany, but I disagree that they would have preferred to do so over Japan.

Read Richard Rhodes. The Project was full of scientists and technicians who had fled the Nazis in specific and fascists in general. When Germany was still in the war, there was no talk among them about the bombs being “immoral” or calls for a demonstration first. The entire effort had been sold as a “must win” race to beat the Germans to the bomb. It was only after Germany’s surrender that the doubts began.

As for “preferring” Germany over Japan, you don’t understand what I was suggesting. IF Germany was still fighting in August of ’45, that means Overloard, Dragoon, Cobra, and Bagration all failed or partially failed in some manner. The Western Allies would be stalled in Italy, would have either failed to gain footholds in France or failed to break out of the same, and Russia would have failed or partially failed in it’s offensive against Army Group Center.

As for US “preferring” to nuke Germany over Japan, you’re also ignoring the number of weapons available in August of ’45: THREE. The US has one U238 and two PU239 bombs. While an additional nine were planned to be ready by November, that estimate proved to be overblown. With only three weapons on hand, all would be used on Germany just all were planned to be used on Japan. Truman hoped, correctly as it turned out, that holding the third back would give Japan additional time to accept the Potsdam declaration.

If Germany was still in the war, it would get the nukes first. “Germany First” was the strategy agreed upon by first the US and UK at Argentia and than later the US, UK, and USSR at Casablanca. For the entire war the main effort of the Allies had been directed against Germany so the bombs would have been directed there too.

A Germany still fighting in August of ’45 is a Germany that gets nuked.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Billy&The CloneasaurusParticipant]

Yes, I see now what you meant.

Hmmmmmm (mulling the consequences).

Correct, that a “Germany first” strategic and political obective was reached at Potsdam.

I was going to jump on your argument for an entirely different reason.

I agree. Germany absolutely would have been nuked if it wasn’t for the Russians.

The answer, is no.

[Author]

Posts