R
It's probably because of his Babyface which is associated with Innocence. People don't except someone like him to be evil. That's why they ignore the bad things he did.
Among educated historians, he is not.
he was good politician imo
Just be white theory.
Recovery said:It's probably because of his Babyface which is associated with Innocence. People don't except someone like him to be evil. That's why they ignore the bad things he did.
absolutely right.
New cuck film "Darkest Hour" glorifies him even more.
@commander_zoidberg what do you think about the man?
He was a soldier in the Sudanese genocide. The British when from town to town killing everyone. Most Sudanese men only had traditional hunting grade weapons so they couldn't fight back effectively, many chose martyrdom of surrender. Many of the light Sudanese weapons were taken from the dead to decorate British homes. Antique Sudanese swords and spears run very cheap online compared to antique Indo-Persian swords and European sabres. Churchill was like a cop shooting black people who were actually minding their own business.
He did what he needed to do, even if I don't agree with what he did or how he did it.
Churchill was a product of his time and did what was necessary. A very complex and flawed character, a product of a time we can't relate too. A raving bipolar, super high functioning alcoholic who drank champagne for breakfast. Not one for partisan politics, a practical man. His critics look back on him with 20/20 hindsight. He had a thing for fanciful schemes but that same energy he got from it is what carried him through such hard times. Above all he seemed to have a statesman's vision. He foresaw many things that lesser politicians could only react to as they happened many years later. Also somewhat rare in that he's one of the few leaders who had killed with his own hands.
Almost no one else could have carried Britain through the war, only other person who might have been up to it would probably have been field marshal Jan Smuts (who also happens to be one of the only men Churchill listened too). A truly great man.
Almost no one else could have carried Britain through the war, only other person who might have been up to it would probably have been field marshal Jan Smuts (who also happens to be one of the only men Churchill listened too). A truly great man.
except gallipolicommander_zoidberg said:
Churchill was a puppet of the international jewish-zionist lobby. He didn't care one bit about Poland (the pretense for starting the war in the first place). He could't offer anything but blood, sweat and tears, and people still went along with him.
It's just more blind patriotism bullshit. Bush wasn't some great, benevolent man and neither was Churchill. Both were just pawns of the zionists.
Every soldier and commander is a faggot without morality. I don't respect anyone with military career. Just lol at this murrican pride for guys who flies to middle east to occupy it and shoot at sheperds with aks.
N
A sellout just like all western politicians
Fucking cuck staying against elimination of all degeneracy, left wing cunts, incel sufferings. 4th Reich would eliminate all the incels and new generations would belong to Chads.
Murican army=Jewish mercenary, I'm sure most of them are low IQ losers.
Akarin said:
Murican army=Jewish mercenary, I'm sure most of them are low IQ losers.
L
well since he lived in the same era as hitler and stalin, he probably wasn't no where near as bad in comparison
Fuck Churchill and his ZOG riding fan base
nausea said:
20/20 hindsight. None of the military operations launched during the earlier years of WW1 worked. Just look at the Somme offensive. No one had any idea how to win a mechanised war of this scale. If anything the Ottomans were probably not a bad target because their empire had been dying for the better part of a century, a soft underbelly of sorts. It wasn't until 1917 that one of the first successful battles of the first world war was probably the capture of the Vimy ridge by the Canadians who were able to assault a highly fortified German position up hill by use of modern tactics and a creeping artillery barrage. Although the wider campaign achieved very little. It wasn't till as late as the battle of amiens in 1918 when Australian units bashed through the German lines in coordination with tanks to begin the 100 days offensive that the generals seemed to have gained a clue about how to fight a modern war.
My great uncle was at Gallopoli and one of my great grandfathers was one of the last men out of there.
I don't see why Churchill gets so much blame for it all. He was a great man but he wasn't alone in not knowing how to fight this kind of war.
my grandgrandfather died at caporettocommander_zoidberg said:
churchill wanted gallipoli, that's it
Classic_Jarvis said:
Churchill wasn't prime minister when the war broke out. He was a pariah in British politics at the time. Neville Chamberlain was PM. A man who desperately attempted to appease Hitler at every turn. The Germans main downfall was not the zionists. It was agreeing to peace and then breaking their word at every turn and being stupid. The situation in Europe was intolerable by 1939 and there was already a full scale war being fought between Japan and ROC in the far east and there had been border battles between the red army and IJA in Siberia and outer Mongolia too. A world war was inevitable Zionists or not.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
