Added: 3 years ago
From: williewotsit
Views: 217,368
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (1,106)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • ELBERIVER11...! Germany moved on the Sudetenland 1st (part of the Chech republic) . When they attacked Poland and later France, Britian moved to aid their allies. A mutual defense treaty. Twice in One generation did Germany start a World War, AND TWICE DID BRITTAIN SAVE EUROPE'S ASS FROM THE HUN. Ignorance is bliss and the blissfully ignorant helped Hitler Murder Millions.

  • @supersidecar First World war yes. Second we needed the USA. it's heroic. a nation so small with a crumbling empire takes up arms to do it's duty to europe. God bless those who served with a bayonett pointing at the Nazis.

  • LOL look at Britain today. What exactly was this man who wore panties fighting for, Jewish interests?

  • Why does England not teach their kids the truth at school about Churchill? Without this man, Britain would not even have joined WW II , and not a single Englishman would have been harmed.

    Not to speak of Churchill's and Stalin's atrocities on Millions of innocent people, many of them raped, child-abused and tortured to death by the "liberators". It's time people wake up about what their politicians were and ARE up to!

    I cannot understand how people believe the nonsense they see in TV shows..

  • "For 400 years it has been the policy of England, to oppose the leading power on the continent - whoever it may be. We do not fight France, or Germany, or a French Emperor or the Hitler-regime (!).....we simply fight the strongest nation on the continent".

    (W. Churchill in a non-public speech in the House of Commons in London March 1936)

    Clear words, why Churchill wanted the destruction of Germany - because she was the biggest competitor. He clearly said, that Hitler was not the reason.

  • What really astonishes me, is how the British and Americans still firmly believe Churchill's lies:

    Everybody knows that Germany never started any war on England in all of human history, in fact England and Germany were ruled by the same King many years ago (German dynasty of Hanover, which Queen Victoria and even today's Queen Elizabeth stem from).

    In both world wars, the British Empire attacked Germany and not the other way round. This was a foolish idea and ended the great British Empire.

  • @Elberiver11

    Do you know anything about the 1839 Treaty of London and the Schlieffen Plan?

  • 12 people lost relatives in the bombing of Hiroshima.

  • cant get job now over here......its full of poxy immigrants.

  • "You do your worst, and we will do our best." Love it.

  • Respond to this video... pretty much says , GERMANY WERE COMING FOR YOU LIKE A RABID ANIMAL SAVAGE.. fuck hitler

  • And then Germany proceeded to Blitzkrieg the fuck out of Britain.

    No, seriously, look it up. They skull-fucked Britain with bombs.

  • @Elementer117 how many brits died in ww2? half a million. over 20 million germans died.. youtube.com/watch?v=qKwVANRiCG­A  germany got owned

  • @uatch

    I fuckin' know the history of the war.

  • @Elementer117 america joined the war 3 years later and had to land in the UK to be able to take action we was the only country in europe not defeated. 27 million russians died . over half a million americans died in troops. and britain founded america we made it :)

  • @Elementer117 america's white population is 80% british

  • @uatch

    What does that have to do with anything? You think I'm ranking on Britain because I'm American? Fuck no, I rank on ALL counties, including my own.

  • Churchill was a ruthless war criminal and had no problem with starving 3 million Indians to death in order to keep his "empire". Why is it bad when Germans want to have an empire and why isn't it when the Brtitsh do? Why is it ok when Churchill slays innocents to win a war and why isn't it when Hitler does? They were both horrible persons with the difference that one of them is still worshipped as a hero today...

  • He was nowhere near as good an orator as Herr Hitler or Dr goebbels whose Total War speech is the greatest piece of oratory of the 20th century .Just listen to it.

  • @pequodman Churchill was twice the orator Hitler and Goebbels were. Hitler just shouted, he was actually really camp. His speeches were shite and dull. Goebbels, I haven't even heard his speeches. He was a measley little cunt.

  • Wise words winston!

  • @hundcellthesixth You can't even spell Zionist.

    What makes you think there is such a place as hell anyway?

  • Churchill the no1 all time leader this world has ever seen!! He could deliver an inspirational speech like no other...

  • what a bufoon, what can I say? Come on really he bankrupted the Empire and in a way led to the end of my homeland. So dont forget his mistakes he stuffed up in WW1 too bad he wasnt killed in the trenches where he served his pennance. The Empire milked by the British Ruling Class they didnt help anyone but themselves. And if you disagree I cgaff.

  • @ExRhodesian I didn't think there were any old Rhodies like this still around.

    How quaint!

  • @ExRhodesian Britain was bankrupt after the Great war, and large part of the Empire became independant, The British economy was broke and great depression started arould the world. Britain couldnt pay there debts. World war 2 was always going to happen, the U.S was planning a war with Britain(war plan red) the Nazis and Axis were planning on wars with Soviets,Chinese it was a build up of powers war was coming, And Hitler brought the British into the war to the fight the Axis Alliance.

  • @martynrobin121 Britain was not bankrupt after WW1. We could afford the huge costs because we were the largest economy. Our economy worsened throughout the interwar period because of the great depression, which our politicians failed to deal with. We were, however, bankrupt after WW2.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Britain was in economic ruin after the Great War, Also France,Italy,etc couldnt pay there debts to Britain, The British couldnt pay there debts to the U.S, Britain was broke! The U.S was demanding money from Britain and relations nearly started anouther world war. U.S became the new best economy because they stayed out of war to trade and make money, In 1940, Britain was broke yet again everything GONE! With the Lendlease 41, Britain is still broke to this day, DEBT DEBT DEBT!!

  • @martynrobin121 It was economically damaged but not bankrupt. Bear in mind, Britain lent more money during WW1 than any other nation by far. The Americans wanted the money back instantly from Britain, Britain wanted to wait until it could claim its money back from France, Russia etc before paying America back.

    Are you some sort of traitor to Britain? We are still an extremely rich nation for our size. Blame Labour for our economic woes.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Yes your Labour is the sole reason for this global economic disaster...

  • @goddamikickass Yes, it's almost entirely Labour's fault. The socialists have bankrupted Britain again.

    The bank bailout cost £80 billion. So tell me why we have a total debt of 4 trillion?

  • @TheLiberalKnight Britains national debt as of July 2011 was £930.1bn, 76% GDP. Say you earn £50k a year and owe £38k on a mortgage would you panic? no.

  • @goddamikickass Debt is actually over one trillion at the moment (It was not 4 trillion, that was my spelling mistake). However our deficit is only 200 billion. So we have at least a fair chance of getting through this OK, so long as we borrow absoloutely no more money and retain the confidence of the international markets.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Britain was badly effected by the Great war, And from the first year of World war 2 the British were bankrupt and had to sell there Territories,etc and the Lendlease 1941 destroyed Britain still to this day with endless debts. So much for winning the war, We lost everything just to help Communism take over Easten Europe and start anouther world war. And it was conservative who destroyed Britains economy, Now Britain has nothing!

  • @martynrobin121 Yes, after WW2, we were bankrupt. Let's get that out of the way firstly.

    But we were NOT bankrupt after WW1. In fact, we remained the richest country in the world up until 1939, on paper, although our growth was abysmal. The fact of the matter is, Britain was the financial powerhouse of WW1 and we lent more money to Russia than we should have done. Once the Bastard Soviets took over, they refused to pay Britain back its money.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Both the world wars destroyed Britain by economic ruin, And made sure Britain was still bankrupt to this day paying off there war debts. Thanks to the Torres British Industry was taken apart and everything is been scrapped. 

  • @martynrobin121 This is getting absurd. Do you even know what bankruptcy means? Britain was bankrupt after WW2, but she was no longer bankrupt after the marshall aid. The next time she became near bankrupt was the 70s, thanks to the Labour party. Our current economic difficulties are also because of Labour's mismanagement of finances.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Because of the World wars Britain was broke and in ruin, Yes Labour never helped the cause in the 70s, But the Torres took apart Britains industry and what made Britain great.

  • @martynrobin121 Because of WW2, not WW1, you fool.

    No, the industry was not what made Britain great. Thatcher, although she had her flaws, recognised how bad our industry was performing. We needed to get rid of the expensive and unaffordable industry for our economy to flourish (which it did). Now, London is the largest financial capital of the world, bigger than New York or Shanghai. So our economy has transformed into the best industrial economy to the best financial sector economy.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Okk................If what you say is true, Then why is Britain in debt and broke? Everyday Britain gets more weak, If the Argis invaded Falklands we would have nothing to stop them!! Britain is in ruin!!

  • @martynrobin121 Why is Britain in debt and broke? Because of reckless public sector borrowing in the last 13 years, that's why! In case you haven't noticed, before 1997 we were the richest country in Europe, and the fourth richest in the world. Now, thanks for Labour, we have sunk down to third in Europe and Sixth in the world. How embarrassing, to be overtaken by the French economy.

    If the Argentinians invaded we would still beat them. It doesn't take much.

  • @TheLiberalKnight You can blame Britains problems just to the last 13yrs but the problems are alot older in my opinion.... And if the Argis did invade the Falklands, The Royal Navy has no Carriers for liberation mission also Harriers have been mostly sold off! Even Italy has more Carriers than Britain! Without NATO the Military is ineffective. As usual we would have to look to the U.S!!!!

  • @martynrobin121 If the Argies invaded the falklands, we would threaten them with nuclear weapons and they would be forced to back down, seeing as they have no allies with nuclear weapons.

    Yes, 90% of our economic woes are thanks to Labour. Look at Canada- they acted responsibly, running budget surpluses in the last 13 years. Now they are doing just fine at the moment. Thanks to Labour's appauling lack of economic knowledge, we are much poorer.

    Finally, fuck the US.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Britain would not threaten the Argis with Nuclear weapons, For many reasons that would destroy Britains relation around the world for a start. You forget Britain has to follow rules and the U.N. People are still been killed today in Japan off the first nuclear weapons! Without Carriers Britain can only watch "IF" the Argis invaded, We were lucky last time, If only 1 of our Carriers was destroyed the mission would be over.

  • @martynrobin121 Either way, the Argies would not invade, they do not have the ability to do so.

    Besides, even if they did, do you really believe the Americans would just sit there and ignore it? It would cause international condemnation.

  • @TheLiberalKnight The Argis could invade very easy, There main AirForce is less than 300 miles from the Falklands, They could invade before Britain even realised what happend. Britain would not be able to do anything, The U.S wouldnt care as usual, Yes they would support Britain by diplomacy and trade. However in the Falklands war, The U.S refused British forces to port,etc on U.S territory, Chille helped more!! Scotland will leave U.K, Britain is history and destroyed, R.I.P!

  • @martynrobin121 There are thousands of troops stationed in the Falklands all year 'round. As well as fighter Jets etc. Since the Falklands war, it's been well protected. Why do you think they haven't invaded in the 29 years since the War ended? Anyway, even if they did get past the troops stationed there, when back up arrived they would be very sorry that they even bothered!

  • @alsum501 Britain has no Carriers so back up would never arrive, Britain is 8,000+ miles from the Falklands. The Argis have there main forces less than 300 miles away from the Islands, Britain has only a small Airfield they could not defend an invasion force. You have to remember we were lucky we won the war 1980s, Due to many reasons. The Argis havnt invaded because they not lead by dictator anymore, However they still say its there Islands under Occupation force.

  • @martynrobin121 We do have a Carrier actually, HMS Illustrious (My old ship as it happens) and 2 new Super Carriers are being made. But sending out a big fleet of Destroyers and Frigates as well as HMS Ocean will be more than Sufficient to take out Argentina's piss poor Military

  • @alsum501 The Royal Navy has only 1 Carrier, The new Carriers that were been built have been stopped due to Cuts. And are you honestly trying to tell me that 1 Carrier with Destroyers,Frigates,etc could defeat the entire Argis Air-Force and Navy? They would be sitting ducks and easy to destroy! 1 Carrier cannot protect an Invasion force 8,000 miles away from homes, Againsts an entire military 300 miles away from Homeland. 2carriers was lucky, 1 Carrier got hit the Operation would be over.

  • @martynrobin121 Of course they could invade. But you underestimate our ability to take it back.

    I note that you think the islands belong to Argentina. What utter nonsense. Why is it theirs? Because it is close to them? Don't make me sneer. By that logic, Malta should lose it's independance and join Italy. The islands were uninhabited when we colonized them, therefore they are ours, 100% ours.

  • @TheLiberalKnight How could Britain take back the Falklands with only 1 Carrier? If the Argis invaded Falklands, Britain would have no hope of taking the Islands by force, 1 Carrier could not take on the whole Argis Air-Force,Navy. You dont seem to realise Britain was lucky to win the Falklands war with 2 Carriers. And the Islands were occupied by Europeans and later Argis before Britain, The Argis hold claim because they were there 10years before us, long story.

  • @martynrobin121 Have you seen the Argentine military? It's not exactly a force to be reckoned with, is it? We still have the fourth biggest military budget in the world, and the Argies were recently officially bankrupt. They are still recovering from the 2001 bankruptcy.

    The falkland islands were uninhabited when Spain took them over. We then took them from Spain. Argentina has never had a right to those islands, which is why they cannot bring it to the UN table!

  • @TheLiberalKnight "IF" Argentina was to invade the Falklands next week, Before Britain could do anything the Islands would be occupied. The Royal Navy has only 1 Carrier, There would be no liberation mission without Airpower. The Falklands is 300miles away from Argentina main Forces, Britain is 8,000 miles away. Iiberation would be impossible. Thanks to the Goverment our Forces are weak, Britain alone is ineffective. We need to look to U.S-NATO for help for basic things.

  • @martynrobin121 You're a traitor to Britain. I bet you're a socialist.

    Britain's armed forces remain to this day the only country with a blue water navy, the largest deployment range apart from the US, the largest navy and air force in Europe, the third most high tech military in the world, the list goes on. The idea that Britain is weak is a socialist lie. We could take the islands back. Technology prevails over numbers.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Honestly just think about it, The Royal Navy 2011 has only 1 Carrier. Are you honestly trying to tell me that 1 Carrier 8,000 away from Britain, could defeat the entire Argi Airforce just 300 miles away from there homeland? It would be impossible, The Argis have Air-power and 1 Carrier is ineffective, That makes Destroyers,Frigates,invasion force, sitting ducks for enemy airforce. Please tell me how Britain could liberate the Islands 2011?? THINK ABOUT IT!!

  • @martynrobin121 Firstly, this is a hypothetical situtation, because Argentina is far, far too weak to attack Britain at the moment. Secondly, Britain is in economic crisis. In five years, we will regain our ability to defend our overseas territories.

    Thirdly, if the worst came to the worst, our air force is the best in Europe, and the RAF would annihilate the Argentine air force, there is no competition.

  • @TheLiberalKnight You have to understand, That Britain cant send the RAF 8,000m to the Falklands. Britain has only 1 Carrier, And the Harriers on the scrap. Argentina would have full Airpower due the fact Falklands is 300m from there homeland. Today Britain could not stop an invasion of Falklands(Fact) Also liberation mission would be impossible due to the lack of Carriers. I know that Argentina would not invade, They are not lead by dictator anymore. However it shows the state of our Forces.

  • @martynrobin121 Yes it can, we own the series of islands that lead directly to it!

    You either hate Britain, or are a socialist. You are twisting the facts here. The Argentine military is EXTREMELY weak. Much weaker than it should be. We would annihilate them. It doesn't matter that we only own 1 air craft carrier. We'll have another one within the next 2 1/2 years, and in 8 year's time we'll have super carriers.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Today 2011, Britain has only 1 Carrier and the Harriers are on the scrap. Today Britain could not defend or liberate the Falklands due to lack of Airpower. I am only saying what is FACT! Honestly to say that 1 Carrier could take on an entire Airforce and protect an invasion force is foolish. We would not "annihilate" anybody today. The New super Carrier will be ready 2020, The other Carrier will be sold thanks to that Idiot Cameron! Goverment is corrupt!

  • @martynrobin121 Everyone knows that already! But the point is, we are withdrawing from Afghanistan soon so that only leaves the islands defenceless for maybe three years. Furthermore, the Argentinians couldn't invade if they wanted to, their military is pitifully weak, that too is a fact.

  • @TheLiberalKnight Look its a well known fact, That Britain today cant protect the Falklands. Britains hasnt got any Aircraft that can take off from Carriers, Harrier on the scrap! I cant see any S.American nations inviting RAF to base in there Country can you? Untill 2020 the Falklands are open for "possible" invasion. And "IF" the Argis did invade Britain could do nothing today FACT! tHAT IS MY POINT! The only possible Aircraft capable arrives 2020 the F-35. Even Libya was hard for RAF!

  • @martynrobin121 Why do you repeat yourself over and over again, and fail to take in anything I say?

    EVERYONE knows the falklands are defenceless for 7 years or so. But it's also a FACT that the Argentinians are too weak to take it!

    Stop saying 'taking it back'. It was NEVER there's. That's another fact for you!

  • @TheLiberalKnight My Point- You said that today Britain could defend the Islands, That is false. I told you that the Islands are defenceless until 2020. And i never said the Falkands were the Argis, I said they make claim.

  • @martynrobin121 Well you clearly hate your own country. Writing on official documents do not determin the truth. People like you didn't believe we could have won the falklands war the first time around. It IS possible for us to retake the islands in modern circumstances, not becasue of our strength but because of THEIR weakness!

  • @TheLiberalKnight So you think i hate my Country, Because i stated a fact? Today the islands are defenceless, Untill 2020 that is my point. And to be honest we won the Falklands war due to been lucky. IF the Argis had even hit 1 of our 2 Carriers, The Liberation mission would be called off. IF the Argis had more Marines on the Islands the Liberation would end in disaster.(Many reasons we got lucky) My point is the Goverments are corrupt and Britains interests are at risk due to there failures.

  • @martynrobin121 Boring conversation terminated.

  • what a hard

  • A speach like this would be classified as racist today... what the hell is happening to britain

  • @luigi7511 Ahem... If you hadn't noticed, Britain is not at war with Germany today. Although considering how all the european nations are now at Germany's feet to bail their lazy asses out, you might as feel say that non-german europeans feel animosity against the almighty Fatherland. On a broader point, Churchill was of course a racist. And by today's more enlightened standards of tolerance and decency, he would be pelted with eggs if he said the kind of ghastly things he was wont to ...think.

  • @luigi7511 Enlightenment!

  • @luigi7511 How? Which part?

  • @suspicious35 A party full of white british people saying " you do your worst, we will do our best " would be classified as discrimination and would be produced by the media to be aimed at immigrants and black people because thats what the media do.

  • @luigi7511 Yes, that's plausible. [no sarcasm]

  • @luigi7511 Moreover I think the problem in Britain is more basic than that. The Left been allowed to marginalize cultural pride and the national will in favor of multiculturalism and moral equivalence.

  • @luigi7511 not really germany was the head of the axsis powers so it was directed to the axsis

  • @luigi7511 multiculturalism & weak leaders

  • @luigi7511 I'll tell you what it is it's labour lib dems conservatives the media and multiculturalism. the only strong leader we could get is Nigel farage UKIP youtube.com/watch?v=ULns-cSUeV­s

  • @luigi7511 speech, not "speach".

  • what a badass

  • Churchils isnt a great statesman or englishman....he fought for the liberation of europe and failed leaving all eastern europe under the murderer stalin ....at the same time bankrupting britain morally and finacialy leaving the empire in ruins....he was the first to order the bombing of civillians in germany ......he was responsible for the fire bombing of dresden that killed 50,000 inocent german people....drunken churchils a war criminal...and a shil ..history written by the victors

  • @horsedumper oh stop being so attention seeking

  • @horsedumper i mth9ink u might b forgetting that chirchill didn't start ww2 and what the hell was he supposed to do in the face of a megalomaniac like hitler? if u knew ur history then u would understand  that the nice old man stalin was carving up europe with the nazis, the soviet pact i believe. if hitler had not of attacked russia after the battle of britiain then i dare say half of europe including eastern europe would have been subjugated to communism and fascism anyway?

  • @horsedumper As opposed to letting the Nazis eradicate the local 'slavs' in eastern europe? Sure, the reds were bad but the nazis would have been worse as they considered them sub human. Churchill was not the first person to order the bombing of civilians, the germans did that in the spanish civil war and in the Blitz. And Britain sacrificed its own empire and power to help beat nazi germany, I dont think I could think of a more fititng way for an empire to collapse than in destroying nazism.

  • @shoter111 INDEED. That's spot on, our empire crumbled because we overstretched ourselves defending the world against Nazi Germany. We were alone, most of Europe fallen, occupied or allied and we stood our ground and fought back. It took every resource and energy our empire had. Also, important to note that our empire mostly consisted of territory that we no longer had a valid claim for. We were not the only country who had to decolonise after WWII.

  • @VeritasEngine Not alone throughout obviously, but we had to stand our ground alone for some time. It took the Americans and the lives of 25 million Russians to stop Nazism in its tracks.

  • Fuck you Hitler...do your worst and see what happens

  • Comment removed

  • That said Winston churchill is one of the greatest leader of all time, the only one that stood up to the tyran Hitler was.

  • This great man saved the World from the Nazis. Who will step up to save us from the Muslims?

  • @tonythecurryman Hopefully the Muslims who aren't using religion as an excuse to kill people.

  • one of the greatest statemen,history will ever remember.

  • ВЕЛИКИЙ!!!

  • Germany: Most evil and killing Empire worlds history has ever seen!!!

    DOWN WITH GERMANY

    NO MORE POWER TO GERMANY

    NO MORE PROSPERITY TO GERMANY

    LONG LIVE AMERICA AND BRITAIN!!!!!

  • @JUSAJJ Uh, Germany's okay now. We don't need to do that anymore.

  • @JUSAJJ i wouldn't exactly say that more people died on Stalin's account than Hitler's

  • @JUSAJJ I'm British, Germany is now a prosperous nation. Do not sentence every German person to death for the sake of a few power-hungry, evil bastards. Remeber, most of the young German men who fought the oncoming tide of the USSR, Great Britain and the USA, didn't want to fight. It was fight or get hung by the SS for treason.

  • @JUSAJJ long live america and britian A alliance made in heavan

  • @JUSAJJ This is the dumbest thing ever said on youtube. Either you're a troll or a completed retarded with no knowledge of history. America and the blessed British empire of the old days have killed more people in their quest for world domination than the third reich could have dreamt of. And don,t you dare be one of the morons that believes Germany was responsible for the killing in World war 1, go educate yourself on the political situation at the beginning of the century. (I am not german BTW

  • @JUSAJJ To be fair, the British Empire was the most violent empire that history ever saw. The only difference between us the Hitler's Germany though was that no one could stop us taking over wherever we wanted and other countries valued their trade with us far too much to declare war.

  • @karlgookey you my friend are perhaps one of the biggest retards I have ever come across! Are you seriously comparing the British Empire to Nazi Germany? What did Nazi Germany do? Genocide against the Jews, gypsies, old people, disabled people. Nazi Germany did nothing but cause death and missery, people still feel the effects now! What did the British Empire do? Britain was the FIRST great nation to abolish slavery and then faught against slave traders............(continued)

  • @nrjelley Only comparison I would make is Germany was a failed empire, the British Empire was not. Don't get me wrong, the British Empire was a great thing for Britain but not so much for the countries we invaded and the many millions of natives we slaughtered to make their country ours.

    Also, you mention technological advancements. Nazi Germany gave us fighter jets, rockets, assault rifles, submarines. Not to mention that a lot of ex Nazi scientists were on NASA staff during the space race.

  • @karlgookey Nazi Germany had the first fighter jets, but i think you will find Frank Whittle is credited with inventing the jet engine years before the Germans did. Also Germany was not the first to use submarines or invent them (especially considering they were around before Germany unified) i think the first succesful submarine was used by the Americans in 1775 and the first one without human propultion was French in 1863.

  • @karlgookey u wouldnt have all the benefits u do today without the empire, so either put up or shut up. not to mentuon the massive civilisation effect that the empire had. take india , without the empire they would still be an ununified land. furthermore without the railways , todays indian economy would be no where near as productive as it is. basically stop the travel on rail and u cripple the indian economy.

    rule britania i shall never speak ill of u, god save the queen and all its subjects.

  • Comment removed

  • @nrjelley Also, I am in no way defending the Nazis, I am just saying that the British Empire did take part in some atrocities throughout it's reign of a quarter of the world. It wasn't all flowers and butterflies, we killed a metric shit-ton of people to make that part of the world ours.

  • @karlgookey thats how any empire is formed , name me one empire where bloodshed has not been at it's birth?

  • @karlgookey maybe the empire had its moments. but we didnt exterminate 6 million people in an orchastrated death cull. furthermore despite britains involvement in the slave trade pre 1808, she did more than any other nation to eradicate such industry after, search navy archives to understand this it is all there, including a near miss with the brazillians..

  • @karlgookey .....Britain introduced industry to its colonies, it brought the English language, it brought democracy, it brought a proper banking system, it brought education, it brought science, it brought religion, it brought a proper judicial system! I think you'll find my friend that the British Empire has done plenty for the world and the vast majority of it good! Quite the opposite to Nazi Germany!

  • @JUSAJJ You do realize that we're living in a different time now, right?

  • FUCK YOU GERMANY!!!

  • Comment removed

  • Churchill is a warcriminal and a massmurderer.

    This fucking fat pig should have been tried and hanged.

  • @Elberiver11

    Sour grapes

  • The British started two world wars on Germany and murdered millions in Germany, claiming to "fight the Nazis". Let's see what Churchill himself said about "fighting the bad Nazis":

    "This war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

    --Winston Churchill, by Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace", p. 145.

  • i remener churhill. this piece of shit was very fond of jews. and he was very partial to getting fucked in this ass and his anus till it bleed. and this faggot loved jews and blacks.

  • Winnie had many faults and he made many mistakes during the war which resulted in the needless death of thousands. First and foremost he was a politician with all that that entails. He was a capitalist and an imperialist. He had many weird and wonderful ideas about winning the war - most of which were unsound. He could be pig headed and childish. He badly misjudged Stalin and the Japanese. However, he refused to give in to Hitler in 1940 and that probably won the war for us. And he could write.

  • @LovelyElbe11 Germany started ww2 by invading poland and they were the ones to start invading countrys while allies had no itentions of invading the germans and also in ww1 they first used poison gas but that's all change and germans,japanese,us,britain,ru­ssia,philippines,polandetc are now friends

  • Churchill was a WARCRIMINAL.

  • The British and the USA are both a wicked axis of evil, they both started war on Germany (Fact) and they both are guilty of WW II.

    Germany's border conflict with a neigbbour (Poland) was none of Britain's or America's business, neither of those two is anywhere near Poland, neither is a neighbour of them. And yet they interfered and turned a small regional war into a world war. Britain and America are both guilty.

    Stop lying about your history, you wicked british people.

  • @WullyBee1873 I can't see your channel for some reason and I really wanted to see the list.

  • @TheMisterTanka Britainistan is better than nothing. lol. Please brush your teeth, thanks.

  • @pissingyouoff2010 The guy you were replying to speaks about god far too often to be British, we outgrew all that long ago. So he might not get that `brush your teeth thing`...if poor dental hygiene is one of our unfounded stereotypes then I reckon we have come off lightly.

    Britianistan wont be that bad, just sum guy shouting bollocks from the top of a spire every morning. The no alcohol could be a problem..but you guys did a good amount of illegal drinking in prohibition, we'll copy you!

  • wow so many people would be happy under Nazi's would they so what if he did bad things he redeemed himself winning a war for the planet, ands no the Untied States would not have stood a chance without Britian they would have had no way to attack Europe

  • @LovelyElbe11 Mate, saying everyones the same...isn't that a little racist? Judging by your comments I don't expect to get a sane reply, you're version of history is about as accurate as Hitlers. Enjoy your hate...see ya

  • @philipp35a right yeah maybe you could translate it seeing as you were smart enough to put it there,. and eh yeah sure mate...:-)

  • @philipp35a oh i have studied history, fool, unfortunately German is a mystery to me, so if you wouldnt mind speaking english? :-).

  • With great subtlety, Churchill commands an audience. Meanwhile Hitler has to scream and shout with manic gestures.

  • I can not believe the amount of nazi comments on Winston Churchill videos, not that their opinion matters because WE WON so go do one

  • The British do not even know their own history. Confront them with the 14 Million german civilians,. deported by Churchill and Stalin and forbidden to ever return to their own houses, and with the 2 million of them who were murdered by the Allies - long time after the war was over. The Germans call it "Vertreibung", but in truth it was a genocide.

    Churchill is one of the criminals at Yalta 1945 who is guilty of this genocide. And the British still try to cover it up: Churchill's genocides.

  • @LovelyElbe11 Well nobody's perfect.

  • @blobby1972 At the end of the war, the German population was fed partly by UK food parcels, at the expense of continued rationing in the UK. Nobody set out to exterminate the German race. Germany wasn't even properly denazified because the allies were so keen to see Germany recover. People were making the same sort of argument as you are in the 1930s about teh Versailles Treaty - and we know where that led, don't we?!?

  • @blueray1969 yes FREEDOM

  • @LovelyElbe11 god your a strange fellow and you have no concept off history you twit

  • Comment removed

  • @LovelyElbe11 The same mistake was not made after WWII - rather than move the borders, the Allies agreed to move the people. Unfortunate for some, including ethnic Germans that were forced out from all over Europe as a result. But much better than giving Germany something to complain about and cause yet another world war. Around 50 million people died as a result of a war Germany started. How dare you call what happened a genocide!

  • @LovelyElbe11 I think you are being somewhat selective with your history! After Germany and Austria-Hungary's defeat in WWI, part of the peace settlement was to redraw international boundaries along national lines. Nevertheless, some countries remained or were created with large and varied ethnic minorities. It was these ethnic minorities that were used as justification by Hitler to attack Poland and Czechoslovakia. These minorities also suffered oppression between the wars.

  • @LovelyElbe11 What proportion of these 14 million German "citizens' were living in homes that were in Germany prior to WWII and how many had been resettled in towns where the previous occupiers had been shot or gassed by the German killing machine? You probably don't even know the ratio.

  • Churchill was one of the biggest criminals and warmongers in human history. This ugly fat English pig should have been tried and hanged for genocide.

    Churchill at Yalta 1945: Guilty of the deportartion of 14 Million German civilians, and the Genocide of 2.0 Million of them. The British until this day cover up their atrocities , their massmurder and Churchill's guilt for it.

  • what does he say between 0:00 and 0:08?

  • @sway2293 I believe he is saying "Meet out to the Germans the measure and more than the measure they have meeted out to us." Interesting use of English, but it basically means let's give them a taste of their own medicine.

  • @eayrs Yes its funny he said that,. because in truth the Germans were giving the British Empire a taste of their own medicine. It was the British who started war on Germany, for all sorts of shady reasons, and it was the Germans who bombed them back. This can be read in any history-book world wide. It is a shame the British are not honest about their guilt for this terrible war.

  • @LovelyElbe11 and you a totaly useless thick //iam guessing human being, seeing as your using a keyboard,hitler from 1932 built a power base and a airforce and anexed country after country ,france and britain stood up too this abomination,

  • Comment removed

  • reading the comments on this video is like watching two orangutans try to operate a rubix cube.

  • Im irish and despite what happened between our two countries i recognise that your finest hour was standing alone against Germany, it was the bravest act your empire ever did to fight against them, and though i regret your occupation of my island, had i been alive then in the 40's when the republic had been created I still would have joined the british army to fight against the horror of nazism.

  • @LovelyElbe11love the way your comment was so outrageous it was hidden apparently no one agrees with you. It wasn't about Germany attacking britain not yet, but it was obvious after the failures of appeasement that hitler would stop at nothing to conquer Europe, how long would it have been before hitlers armies were at britains doorstep, someone had to make a stand perhaps you should shut your mouth get a fucking life and stop randomly calling someone who is obviously better than you a moron :-)

  • @LovelyElbe11

    How do you argue that Britain never tried to appease Germany? If all the UK wanted was to destroy Germany, why didn't they declare war at any one of the violations of the treaty of versailles that had happened beforehand: The reoccupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the takeover of Czechoslovakia, the build up of the German armed forces? Why not invade then when the german forces were much weaker?

  • @LovelyElbe11

    Although technically this is right, and it's unfair to say that the German's started WWI entirely, they did invade Russia, France and Belgium with little justification. Indeed, in Belgium, they were breaking a treaty which they themselves had signed years earlier. The UK was also party to this treaty and thus intervened to observe belgium's independence which Germany had compromised. In WWII Hitler ignored an ultimatum which, practically speaking, was paramount to declaring war.

  • @LovelyElbe11

    You seem to be thinking of WWII, I was talking about WW1. To quote Wikipedia:

    "The significance of the Schlieffen Plan is that it forced German military planners to prepare for a pre-emptive strike when war was deemed unavoidable; otherwise Russia would have time to mobilize, and Germany would be crushed by Russia's massive army."

    Thus you see, Germany declared war PRE-EMPTIVELY before any other declaration of war was made, and incidentally France was never beaten in WW1.

  • @LovelyElbe11

    You seem to be thinking of WWII, I was talking about WW1. To quote Wikipedia:

    "The significance of the Schlieffen Plan is that it forced German military planners to prepare for a pre-emptive strike when war was deemed unavoidable; otherwise Russia would have time to mobilize, and Germany would be crushed by Russia's massive army."

    Thus you see, Germany declared war PRE-EMPTIVELY before any other declaration of war was made, and incidentally France was never beaten in WW1.