CHURCHILL IS AN EVIL FUCKING CUNT & WAR CRIMINAL THAT ORDERED THE BOMBING & GENOCIDE OF OVER 500,000 German Children, Women, Men, Elderly & even all the animals in DRESDEN!
many say the road to 9/11 started here, with cold war priorities causing us to side with rulers in the middle east who, as we now know, caused rage within their populations
@exrock712 Technically, the road to 9/11 started with the invention of fire. The fact that we avoided thermonuclear annihilation technically lead to that terrorist attack. It's impossible to gauge exactly what effect an action will have, people are too complex to predict.
CHURCHILL is a fucking WAR CRIMINAL for the HOLOCAUST OF BOMBS DROPPED ON DRESDEN & GENOCIDE of 500,000 Aryan Germans! FUCK the Treaty of Versailles & the FUCKING EVIL ZIONIST ANTI-CHRISTS with their FAKE HOLO-HOAX, just an excuse to INVADE PALESTINE! WHITE POWER for the people of Germany!
Anyone knows who is the author of this jewish piece of wisdom?
His most close advisor, the arch-chief of the TEMPLE WHICH MUST BE BUILT BY ALL WORKMEN FROM ALL COUNTRIES.
That is the pure judo-masonic FORMULA.
Stop dividing the world - it's a jewish privilige. You'll be the blues, and you'll be the reds - and while you fight a mortal war, THE RICHES OF THE WORLD will be the jewish possession. The US jews did TAKE for nothing the whole of the British empire to 1946. That's the reason .
It is quite probable, accordingly, that the non-English-speaking nations, which constitute the vast majority of the population of the world, will not agree to submit to a new slavery.
What's the hell?!!! Soviets were about to begin another war?!!! Was this guy out of his mind?!!! Soviets lost 20 million people in that war, where fighting non stop from 1941 to 1945 while the allies graciously decided to join them in 1944. Soviets were exhausted after 5 years of fighting nazis practically alone! So what new war they could possibly start? What a shamfull speech, such disrespect to those who lost their lives in that war! Godless man!
@lttrhd Despite the fact that they did... ever hear of the Eastern Bloc and the NATO pal? Don't bag on Churchill if you don't have your facts right. I mean its the god damn COLD WAR he's talking about.
@Claydoberto No, he is not! Listen to the speech carefully - he very clearly makes analogies with the beginning of second world war! And what nato has to do with anything in this partifular case? Or eastern block, for that matter? You are arguing hust for the sake of arguing and I'm not interested in that, sorry.
@Claydoberto Actually, the "Cold War" hadn't really started yet. Russia was still considered allies of the United States at this time. Churchill's goal was to create suspicion toward the Russians among Americans. It worked. The term "Iron Curtain" was coined in this speech. From here, suspicions grew on both sides of that "Iron Curtain."
yeh you fat prick. state obvious facts insted trying to help us. fighting along the allies was the biggest mistake in history of Poland. we should'ev joined Hitler, or even the commies. YOU left us like a piece of shit. someday, you will pay for it, and we will be there to piss on your remains.
Before commenting on this speech, one should read the entire speech and not simply listen to a portion of it. Churchill believed firmly in the United Nations and thought that it should have its own military. What do you conservative nuts think about that?
What a wonderful man. He called it spot-on, and he had seen this coming for miles. If only Roosevelt hadn't been such a fool that he took Joe Stalin for a real ally, and listened more to Churchill.
@azimuth30, it is referring to the period after World War Two when the Soviets had 'liberated' Eastern Europe from Nazism they created Communist governments in these areas and Churchill is commenting on the idea of a split in Europe - the East, Communist, censorship, poor / the West, Democratic, free press and rebuilding after the War.
It's only 9 months on from the devastation at the end of the war, but Churchill observes a sinister quality to the Soviets, even though the war was fought with US, UK and Soviets as allies. Historian Eustice Mullins suggests that it's incredible that the Soviets could be perceived as a threat in a world with a powerful un-bombed and victorious US. But the cold war has to start somehow.
All of the 65 years of propaganda will NOT erase the observations that Britain with its foolish advice to its unstable Polish ally on the Danzig question INVITED the war to start, playing the Poles for DUPES. When Churchill could then have minimized the affair through a negotiated settlement he chose instead to GAMBLE and maneuvered TOWARDS a longer horrific war. This speech omits the "mea culpa" phrase (like that of Robert McNamara about admitting that Vietnam was a "mistake").
Hitler was wrong about Churchill. Churchill seemed incapable of understanding the manner in which Britain would LOSE even as it was a bit player in the crushing of Germany. Great man? NO! A "great man" would have worked towards minimizing the war and regaining the peace that was actually possible twice before the world exploded in 1941. A great man would have had better foresight on Soviet Communist intentions after Spain and considered Hitler as a potential anti-communist ally with Poland.
@historatia the war 'exploded' in 1939, peace couldnt have been acheived as Hitler was determined to conduct a long outright war, his economy was preparing for total war back in 1936! the 4 year plans made it even more clear. Churchill was one of the few who openly voiced his disgust at appeasement throughout the 30s as he knew it wouldnt work. he was always suspicious of stalin even way back at the teheran conferences but the russians were needed for their immense manpower to win the war!
@meganisationlubracat You should try to think it possible that the propaganda you swallowed may NOT have been true. It was David Lloyd George in his speech at the Conference of Genoa who stated BLUNTLY that the way Versailles had left things Germany and Russia had a right to be angry. HE predicted war with a couple of years, or later, blaming the failures of Versailles of which he himself had been an architect. Its easy to push the blame for it all on Hitler...
@meganisationlubracat Hitler's coming was the DIRECT result of the veritably criminal carthagenian peace that Imperialist Britain agreed to with a very vindictive France. Between the grotesque unfairness of Versailles to the Germans, and the ridiculous exclusion of Gemany and Russia from international economic affairs arranged at the Conference of Genoa, 1922, (30.2% unemployment in Germany in 1931) the coming of a man like Hitler was not only foreseeable, but certain. ...
@meganisationlubracat You may believe that comic book propaganda you recite, but the best of academic investigations shows your premise to be completely wrong. " December 2nd, 1932 : Germany’s economy had not rallied despite the government’s cut backs and 20 million Germans were at the point of starvation. Begging was common place, there was nation-wide unemployment, and industries were failing."
@meganisationlubracat So Hitlers "navy" with 2 battleships, 3 heavy cruisers, 18 destroyers no aircraft carriers against the British 15 battleships, 66 cruisers, 184 destroyer and 66 submarines and 7 aircraft carriers, makes your claim a total joke. Furthermore his army in 1939 was SMALLER than France's in manpower artillery and tanks. What propaganda rubbish you believe with your bloated navy trying to hang on to the control of 1/4 of the world. Grow up.
@meganisationlubracat Believe from the propaganda what you will, but understand that Hitler was CORRECT about the outcome of the war (win or loose) for Britain, and when Churchill was given the chance to have the war stop early (1939 after the Polish campaign), after the Brits were let go at Dunkirk (June 1940), and when Hess flew in (May 1941) Churchill colossally misjudged. Churchill pulled the cork and today we can barely see the bubbles where you sank into irrelevance to the world.
@historatia i think it is incredibly offensive for you to argue that britain should have put its own overall importance above the ramifications of tyranny in europe. besides, even if the british empire had lasted a thousand years, they would say that it was their finest hour.
@jonnyc4tw Quite to the contrary. You can believe that propaganda line if you want. What is "incredibly offensive" to civiiized people is the extraordinary tyranny that the British committed on the world for the entire colonial period. In 1943 alone Churchill refused to release the foot supplies and 4 million Bengali people starved to death. The British did nothing but subjugate, rape and pillage so much of the world for decades. Go read Philip Knightley "The First Casualty"...
@jonnyc4tw Did you know that in its GREED for world dominance and power it attacked the Boer Republics and KILLED OVER 50% OF THE CHILDREN UNDER 16 OF THE BOER FAMILIES IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Go read the facts of it. The British have NEVER concerned themselves with any human lives of others, only their own games of empire. Like I said, Britain should have worked for regaining the piece but the DID THE OPPOSITE and then murdered Hess at 93 still trying to hide it. Disgusting!. ...
@jonnyc4tw Churchill KNEW about Kitchener's camps and HID THE TRUTH. Some reporter, Mr. Churchill. watched children DIE and did nothing about it. The Canadians in the Boer war came back DISGUSTED by the British way of killing women and children of farmers like themselves, ashamed that they had had to take part. Read up on Emily Hobbhouse, a truly honourable Englishwoman. Besides in WW2 the Brits were an inconsequential force as far as the Germans were concerned. Finest hour? Market Garden? Oh..
@jonnyc4tw What is REALLY offensive from the Polish point of view is how the Brits weren't willing to live up to their treaty obligations and big mouth and send their huge navy into the Baltic to help the Poles. Hitler's tyranny? Is that the tyranny when he DELIBERATELY let the men leave from Dunkirk, rather then keep them as hostages to force a peace deal. Some tyranny. But Britain? Well in 1919 it forced a German City of 250,000 in to a "prison city" status. Stupidly arrogant Brits.
@historatia I'm slightly at a loss of how British strategic bombing in either World War 1 or 2 is a cause to describe the British as 'stupid' or 'arrogant'? Maybe you could articulate your overarching historical argument slightly more coherently? It looks like quite a few people on here would like to hear it. Are you just trying to discredit British foreign policy as a whole, or offer support for that of Germany? Either way, you seem to be incorporating a lot of irrelevant information.
1. I am NOT intending to offer support to the Germans. That in WWI the Black Eagles fell --and all to the wave of radical socialism -- was truly their own doing. Britain, as part of the Entente managed to "stalemate" (NOT DEFEAT) the Germans in the west, but ARROGANTLY refused to credit the internal collapse of Germany to political forces sweeping Europe.
2. The British participated in the rape of Versailles and appears to have believed that that chopping of East Prussia from its homeland, and turning Danzig into an imprisoned city of nearly 300,000 Germans under de facto Polish control was "acceptable" and could lead to peace??? THAT is ARROGANT AND STUPID at the same time.
3. The British, French FAILED to STOP their client state POLAND from then invading Russia, Lithuania and the Ukrained -- and CONQUERING non-Polish territory EAST of the Curzon Line, --and with their Czech friends and forces from Canada ABANDONED their attempt to crush the Bolsheviks FLED in defeat (withdrew from Archangel). The Bolcheviks also defeated the USA and its ally Japan in Siberia. THAT defeat of Britain, France and the USA CHANGED the world.
4. Despite the Address David Lloyd George gave at the Conference of Genoa, WARNING THE POLES AND WARNING OF WAR, the British did NOTHING to correct the STUPIDITIES of Versailles that people like John Maynard Keynes and many others warned about. Poland had made ENEMIES of all its eastern neighbours by OCCUPYING Russian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian (East Galicia) settled lands and ethnic cleansing. Britain recognized the broken "balance of power" and DID NOTHING to regain stability.
8. I could spend the next hundred posts going through the threads of how Britain contributed so greatly to the resumption of war in 1939, but I think you get my drift. Hence my view of ARROGANCE that blinded and STUPIDITY that brought down the British Empire so VERY quickly after May of 1945. But let me add a few more.
9. When Germany moved in to Poland AFTER the British/French threat to support Poland, and only AFTER Polish Marshall Rydz Smigly began to move his Divisons into an ATTACK posture (including having an oil portrait painted of himself at the Brandengerg Gates, the Brits did NOTHING to calm the tensions and suggest that they negotiate on German repatriation of ITS OWN PEOPLE IN DANZIG. (Stupid.)
10. When, after the Brits KNEW that Stalin was still smarting from the Polish aggression onto non-Polish settled lands EAST of Lord Curzon's line, they KNEW from Deputy Soviet Foreign Minister Vishinsky that STALIN demand British help to get the Lithuanian, White Russian and Western Urkainian lands BACK. the British and French DID NOTHING. When Ribbentrop called on Molotov -- (while the Brits were also in Moscow negotiating) -- Stalin put the map to Ribbentrop. Hitler agreed!!
11. So Stalin wanted his land back and Hitler agreed and got his "non-aggression" pact, WHICH THE BRITISH WERE NOT PREPARE TO REQUIRE OF THE POLES.
12. After the Germans defeated the stubborn and strong polish military (with its better French tanks) the Germans kept seeking peace negotiations with the British and French. Was it smart for the BRITS to refuse to talk and instead moved into France and while Hitler replaced his major losses from the Polish campaign?
13. After the Germans blew the British back to Dunkirk and crushed the French in 1940, and HITLER LET THE BRITISH MEN GO RATHER THAN TAKE -- AS HE COULD HAVE -- 350,000 BRITISH PRISONERS -- why then decide still to NOT talk peace, especially KNOWING that Hitler war strongly anti-communist. Was it that Hitler -- who were pushing the Jews out but NOT killing them -- was so EVIL?
14 Was NOTHING sufficient to have the Brits consider PEACE as a good option? Then came the HESS affair that finally had the Brits murder him at 93. Where are the records of the discussions between the Brits and HESS who had come with a Professor Haushofer proposal to gain a peace? Why are they still secret?
15. In the end the British approach to all of this -- along with their American allies -- found themselves forced to assist Stalin and build up his power to then imprison eastern Europe for two generations. I know of no way of "rationalizing" that as a 'smart' and 'worthy' outcome for British, American and French actions. It should be a huge source of shame. Only the Americans and Soviets won from it. Smart?
@jonnyc4tw Please please please. The British enslaved 1/4 of the world in a captive empire, pillaged and oppressed hundreds of millions of people around the world, engaged its miltary to destroy the Boer republics and invented the Concentration camps that killed 50% of the CHILDREN under 16 in Africa -- to pillage the gold for Cecil Rhodes, -- and YOU want to play upstanding moral "ant-tyrant" on these pages?
Ridiculous!!! Britain ONLY ever acted in its OWN interest !!1
1. First, Versailles left Germany with a 100,000 man military without armour, airplanes, or, in reality, the ability to keep order in an emergency, never mind defend itself while the Poles and French ran a series of meetings (at the request and urging of Beck as the Polish leader) to attack and decimate the Germans.
2. His first "economic plan" was aimed at the horrific MESS in which the Allies had forces Germany from the Conference of Genoa forward. Germany had 31% unemployment and hundreds or thousands living in holes in the ground. (Britain was 18% and able to use its empire for markets REFUSED to Germany. The first and largest financial program was HOME RENOVATIONS. (Go read Cambridge economist on Hitler's implementing the Keynes General Theory BEFORE Keynes published it!)
3. In 2003 a economic analysis book came out in the United States showing that the claims of Hitler's economy going directly and only to an aggressive war footing was NONSENSE.
4. The French had once again invaded Germany (1923) and was threatening to do it again, -- read Gamelin's autobio.. and Poland was BREAKING agreements after Pilsudski died when they had a 500,000 fully equipped army..The stopped German coal shipment trains on the transit corridors to East Prussia.
5. The ONLY piece of documenation used to support the "intentional war" theory is the Hossbach Memorandum written by Colonel Friedrich Hossbach in November 1937. Hitler's Military Adjutant. Both AJP Taylor and more recently Ian Kershaw disagree that the Memorandum makes any such plans. The "Intentionalist" school to which you obviously belong has NO basis for the claims you make.
@historatia well my claims are based on what hitler told goring he wanted for the economy to acheive, mainly self sufficiency (so they didnt become crippled by blockade of foreign goods like they did in ww1, and to make the economy ready for war! surely hitlers OWN dictation is good enough documentation over a historians interpretation? i respect your own opinion though the claim your making that Hitler was bullied into war by the french and poles is utterly ridiculous?!
@meganisationlubracat The answers to this are: Germany could NOT feed itself, and self-sufficiency was REQUIRED with the Germans locked out of foreign trade markets by the US, Britain and France. That policy is a "defence" measure, to reduce externally applied choking of Germany, and cannot be considered a "pro-war" effort. At Nuremberg (watch the films) Goering explained it differently than your propagandists did.
@meganisationlubracat Perhaps before you dismiss the French and Polish danger to Germany, you should research the Polish-Soviet War of 1919 with its effects that went right up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact. Research the Promotheism project, and Miedmorze, and understand that Poland was NOT a democracy after Pilsudski's coup d'etat, but had its OWN BRAND OR POLISH NATIONAL SOCIALISM. Then go read French General Gamelin's memoirs of the visits of French and Polish military...
@meganisationlubracat Try not to forget that the French were still working on pushing their territory to the Rhine in the 1920's and invaded Germany in 1923 again, and stayed for many years, and then tried to keep the German lands west of the Rhine demilitarized. (Imagine no British troops south of the Midlands?) The Poles also did military incursions at Annaberg, and then invaded Teschen before Hilter told them they could have it provided they would enter negotiations on Danzig. They welshed.
@meganisationlubracat One of the more fascinating vignettes of the start of war is the meeting in Warsaw in Beck's palatial conference room with Beck, Skladkowski, Rydz-Smigly and their top central command staff. The smiling Rydz-Smigly, (after once again receiving the assurance from Beck that the French and British were attacking immediately stoop up and drank to Rydz-Smigly's salute "To Christmas in Berlin" (for which he had already posed for the oil painting that still exists."
@meganisationlubracat One of the more nonsensical unfounded pieces of propaganda is that the Polish military -- 48 well-equipped divisions -- were easily overrun by the 63 German Divisions. The German losses were HEAVY, constituting about 30% of its armour against the very large numbers of excellent French built Schneider artillery, and near exhaustion of the Wehrmachts ammunition supplies. Placed into a 'defense' posture rather than 'counter-attack' the Poles could have prevailed.
@meganisationlubracat I don't think "bullied" is the right word. The Poles and French made it easy for Germans to understand to re-arm themselves. The Poles COULD have been given access to the Baltic through Memelland between East Prussia and Lithuania RATHER than CUT OFF East Prussia and IMPRISON the German city of Danzig under de facto Polish Controls. Why wasn't that done? Any suggestions. In the whole of history, those actions rank as amongst the most incredibly stupid.
@meganisationlubracat The thing you may be forgetting is that the Poles have this MYTHOLOGY of the Great Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th and 18th Century that finally rotted out of existence and collapsed in 1795. The Poles held the view that they were entitled to ALL the territory of that 'commonwealth' although Lord Curzon and the Americans said "only Polish settled". The Poles went on a rampage and GRABBED THE REST. After the coup in 1926, they tried to act as a "great power".
@meganisationlubracat As soon as you can locate that "dictation" I'd like to see it. I believe you are referring to the Hossbach memorandum, summarizing a Novermber 1937 meeting and prepared FIVE DAYS after. It was introduced at Nuremberg. Hossbach survived the war, and DISPUTED parts of the changes made to it (he still had a copy of the original and disputed version supposedly captured by the British). Ian Kershaw and AJP Taylored dismissed the claims made about it in any case.
7. The Wehrmacht had NOT been built up to invade Russia. An examination of the Wehrmacht equipment showed that it could not possibly function in the conditions of Eastern Europe, nor reliably in winter. The Germans didn't even lay in winter military wear. Only in the figment of propagandized imaginations could anyone say the HITLER wanted to start a way and take over the world.
Instead Churchill conducted affairs to the END Point that HITLER had predicted in his reasoning of why the British would NOT continue with the war after 1940.. "Mr. Churchill knows fully well that if he engages us in a longer war IT WILL COST BRITAIN HER EMPIRE" . Hitler (speaking before the Holocaust started) was correct! When it was over India was gone in less than 24 months. As Suez showed, Britain was now an indebted slowly sinking island off Europe's coast.
Already at the Conference of Genoa in 1922, David Lloyd George warned of the coming of war given the behaviour of the Poles in grabbing Russian lands east of the Curzon Line and the untenable position into which Germany have been placed. He and EVERYBODY else KNEW that the carthagenian peace of Versailles was NOT tenable. CHURCHILL not only drove Britain into the ground with the Exchequer, but did NOTHING to ease that situation. ...
This speech is remarkable for the "hindsight" of hearing Churchill say that the whole war NEED NOT have happened. Yet when HE had a chance to stop it in October 1940 and again with Hess's desperate visit in May 1941. Churchill is the MOST RESPONSIBLE for the squabble over Danzig exploding into the vast war that it became. "How could he have been so STUPID?" and then give this speech? (which plagiarizes Goebbel's "iron curtain" phrase)
The U.S. and Britain sure could use leaders like FDR and Churchill at this juncture in history. In my humble opinion, the Western World now relies on lily-livered, dick-headed sellouts to run their governments.
"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." Winston S. Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
@SirWinstonChurchill Forgive me, I'm slightly tired and lethargic from hunger, but I don't see how an anti-Muslim comment reaffirms or fits with what I just said.
The book was published in 1899... and like the events leading to WWII, "the Western World now relies on lily-livered, dick-headed sellouts to run their governments."
Islamic birth control is a bomb strapped to a ten year old child....
@SirWinstonChurchill Yea, I'm still not understanding the reference there. Btw, I don't want to sound like a puss, but you really shouldn't insult people's political or religious beliefs, even on the internet. You never know whom you might be offending.
@SirWinstonChurchill hahaha that may be so, but just because you can say something without fear of being beaten to a pulp doesn't mean it's right to do so. and, I mean no offense, but the internet is a pretty convenient venue for someone to be boasting about how tall they are or how much they hate a certain group of people, isn't it?
He and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had joined at Yalta to deliver Eastern Europe to Stalin, with the originator of the plan Alger Hiss.. And then unemployed was invited to give this speech. . So, i don't know. . yeah a great leader!
Britain an island of 40MN at the time was brutally occupying 1/4 of the World by sheer tyranny - this fat lump of camel crap in history books of the east was much much worse than Hitler ever was.
The British tyrants killed many times more people than Hitler ever did.
They got fucked in Afghanistan then and like now - Hitler was a lesser Devil than this Great Devil - it was because of the Lesser Devil than India etc were free from the Greater Devil.
@salahuddin786 fuck of cunt you have no idea what your on about if it wasn't for Britain you think the world would have what it has today? we colonized this world, Australia, America just for a few, Hitler experimented on children and gassed millions just because he didn't like them, Britain colonized the world and admittedly killed thousands, but that's no different from every other empire in history, we got fucked in Afghanistan? i lol'd at how fucking thick you are, go fuck yourself asshole
Chill out Canada, btw who is your Head of State? Oh thats right The Queen, Which country made yours? Oh thats right Britain. What language are you speaking? Oh thats rgiht English.
What has happened to the speakers of the past, the great speakers who moved and motivated... why do we not have these type of models in our society now and what can we do to bring them back. Truly beautiful speech by Churchill!
@XxdeathspunkxX Modern politicians have their speeches written and/or vetted by committees of speechwriters that ensure the maximum level of blandness to avoid any unpredictable results.
People like "askjiir" don't seem to realize that from his own racist comments he shows low intelligence and therefore is categorized as a sub-human!
"Teilhaus" also has no understanding of Hitler! He had a peace pact with Russia, little good it did them! He started by killing his own people in Germany under the T4 Program (look it up) and would have thought nothing of killing anyone, regardless of race or culture, had he won. Thank God for Churchill!
Certainly the smartest and on point of speeches. He knowing history saw what was on the horizon immediately. Then to state as we knew the Germans weren't so bad in the fact they reacted to an insufferable humiliating defeat. With the worst in reparations and leaving germany with no dignity no money and no way out but war. The United States implementing the Marshal Plan saved a WWIII. We lifted up and weren't there to conquer.
Churchill should never have needlessly taken us to war with Germany, look at the state of us now as a direct result of that decision, our countries invaded with limitless numbers of non-whites to the point where we will soon be out-numbered in our own countries, anti-white Jew monopolized media, anti-white "leaders", out of control crime, decadence and degeneracy.
Your right. I wish Germany would have been allowed to kill all those filthy jews and subhumans. Churchill ruined that plan, he should have let Hitler rule central and eastern Europe. So we now could live in a great Eurasian Empire.
Where the entire world is white. Free from all niggers and muslims.
@Andy666851 Churchill could still have stopped the needless war at any time, Hitler wanted a peace with Britain, and by God we should have given him one. When did I say other races were not about at thye same time as Whites? It doesn't mean we should have our countries invaded with limitless millions of them to the point where we will soon be out-numbered in our own countries and our race wiped out through mongrelization.No other race would put up with it in their own country, neither should we.
@teilhaus i agree that most nations would not openly support this however, it has happened before and it will happen again. The Spanish *and i mean from Spain* used to be pale skinned. There are still pail skinned Spanish but how many do you see that are from Spain that are not pail skinned? Even with Spanish parents? There gene pool has been mixed with various cultures that they had won against. Just as the US has against the Spanish and native cultures. You take others land you mix with them.
Churchill was merely helping begin the Cold War by reinforcing the fear of Communism. He had seen the breakdown of good relations with the USSR after WW2
The issue of the official trial of the Nazi Josef Stalin raised and at the Teheran Conference in 1943, and at Yalta in the 45-m. But Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were opposed to judicial proceedings. They believed that the captured members of the Nazi leadership to lynch on the spot. Stalin saved my country and the world from the fascist plague, and your Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill - Fools in the service of Jewish Bin Laden
@superdan1875 Hell Yeah. To all of my friends who are Britons, I apologize for my country America making an ass out of you when our previous President dragged you guys into Iraq. We shouldn't have gone there. Let's forget Bush and Blair and go back to Roosevelt and Churchill shall we?
better study your history man. Churchill and Roosevelt together facilitated Stalin's reign of terror and the despotic Bolshevik/Communist regime that ruled the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc nations with an iron fist for 50 years and resulted in the deaths of over 25 million people.
Strong Conservatives, like Churchill, Thatcher, and your Reagan, are the type capable of building strong nations. All others, such as your Carter and Obama, only bleed nations to death.
@tsimon1234 no I have not. I have heard a few though. I think you are right that they are well written I do not despute that at all instead what I was refering to was the word "orator". He is good at writing his speaches (if he did indeed write them since most politicians do not), but I do not feel he is good at stering emotions like say a Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Mendella or even Hitler. That for me is what makes someone a great orater not just the words but how they are expressed.
@jay123tysk Fair point, But this is not one of his best read speeches. While the words here are good it is not delivered so well. However many of his other speeches are very well delivered. As for Malcolm X? Racist bastard, don't even mention that anti-Semitic violent idiot again. While he was fighting for a good cause, he went about it in a completely wrong way. And Hitler? Maybe, but I find that most of speeches are simply hate filled rants.
@tsimon1234@tsimon1234 I am not saying I agree with the the people I mentioned, all I am saying is they were really good at conveying emotion and getting people to connect and believe in what they were saying. Imagine if you had the same skill they possed and used it to further a good cause. That is the Ideal, the combination of a good message and good delivery. I look to take whatever is useful no matter the source and I discard what is not. In this their message.
The Cold War wasn't just between the Americans and Soviets, they were just the only superpowers at that time. It began over ideological differences Capitalism-Communism and began when Churchill/Roosevelt decided that the allies weren't going to take any territory for themselves. The Soviets had other plans and kept Eastern Europe. But it had its origins long before the war, (ideology) and the only reason England and America were allied with Russia was because they had a common enemy.
@Elephantswithsquaids I disagree. I would prefer Yalta to be the start because it's where the Allies began planning post war plans and it was assured that the allies would occupy a portion of what ever land each country they liberated. The USSR wanted a buffer zone for any future invasions and they were set on creating a mass Soviet influence eastern europe. Im not calling down your theory im just putting forward my opinion.
@snipersam3 Churchill had a very strong sense of the danger Britain would be in if the US withdrew into isolationism and left Britain to face Stalin in Europe all alone--a repeat of 1940. It is fortunate that he lost the 1945 election, because he travelled around the US in 1946, alerting America to the threat of a triumphant USSR bestride the Eurasian continent. C did not start the Cold War. The Cold War is a perverse extention of the immediate post-War period when Stalin was a threat .
.....it was mostly atlee and fucking truman.... Russia actually got fucked over by the Western powers at the end of WW2. if they had given him at least some of the reparations he wanted then there would have been no cold war
Obama? He is nothing.. he s a community organizer. Thats it. No military record, no amazing achievements, just his decrepit Chicago and ACORN fraud & sexploitation foundation emerging in his wake. Higher powers at work here, Obama nothing more than figurehead. Presidential position nothing more than figurehead. Wall St. and Corporation are what run world policy. Federal Reserve, WBO, etc. all globalists whos agenda is one-world govt. & currency.
I see alot in Obama in what I see in Churchhill. YEAH RIGHT. HAHAHA. Obama and his canned Bilderburger/socialist/extreme leftist speeches make me sick. Impeach that man, somebody!! Us constv,/rep. are counting on the bluedogs these days.. stand up for freedom liberty not ideology an socialism people!
What evidence do you have that makes Obama a socialist? Because he gave money to corporations so they won't fold?Because he is trying to bring forth a somewhat gov't run health care?
You see his is why we can't make any process. These people living in tards land watching cnn all day... at rick of sounding like "all other republicans"... Listen to fox or hanity... all you do is say things like," go see hanity he will tear you up." He is freaking raping you. he is right on your ass and you know it. And trying to bring forth "somwhat" of a healthcare system... He is trying to make it gov't run... nice try.
Umm,I have no idea what you said everything up to "And trying to bring forth "somwhat" of a healthcare system... He is trying to make it gov't run... nice try. " you were rambling too much.What I think you tried to say was that I watch CNN?I do not watch CNN or any other American news media.Now what Obama is proposing is nothing close to what is offered in the rest of the Industrialized world, that is why I say somewhat cause his proposal offers a govt insurance with private competition.
lol, ya'll kill me, yes, the U.S. and the Brits defeated the Nazis together, but, the russians would have never stopped. they would have never stopped no matter what the cost.
Russians took heaviest casualties during the war.. Entirely possible if US and Brit had to face an eastern-theatre outcome may have been much different if Russians had been defeated. Let us not forget our millions of dead Red brothers who gave their lives opposing Fascism! Even thou not popular Russians still I'd say took at very least 40% of German Army with no contingent forces.
@l00t3rsp00n Why 26 million? Say it 26 billion! Military losses of the Second World 1:1.3. and if the Soviet Union started the war properly, without betraying the Soviet generals and marshals, all Europe would be Soviet. through year 2.
@l00t3rsp00n casualties dont mean anything about being crucial, it just means a lot of your soldiers died. not trying to be mean or anything but the russian war strategy was horrible
what si this video about?
the iron curtain in Europe?
kaas21fly 23 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHURCHILL IS AN EVIL FUCKING CUNT & WAR CRIMINAL THAT ORDERED THE BOMBING & GENOCIDE OF OVER 500,000 German Children, Women, Men, Elderly & even all the animals in DRESDEN!
whitechristian1066 1 month ago
this was at fulton's (missouri) westminster college
alisalahdada 1 month ago
many say the road to 9/11 started here, with cold war priorities causing us to side with rulers in the middle east who, as we now know, caused rage within their populations
exrock712 2 months ago
@exrock712 Technically, the road to 9/11 started with the invention of fire. The fact that we avoided thermonuclear annihilation technically lead to that terrorist attack. It's impossible to gauge exactly what effect an action will have, people are too complex to predict.
Keraos 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHURCHILL is a fucking WAR CRIMINAL for the HOLOCAUST OF BOMBS DROPPED ON DRESDEN & GENOCIDE of 500,000 Aryan Germans! FUCK the Treaty of Versailles & the FUCKING EVIL ZIONIST ANTI-CHRISTS with their FAKE HOLO-HOAX, just an excuse to INVADE PALESTINE! WHITE POWER for the people of Germany!
whitechristian1066 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very tiny sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “autumntree2011” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
(I'm not a fan of Hitler or KKK.)
autumntree2011 4 months ago
WAZZZZZZZ UP PLZ LIKE!!!
TheMash500 4 months ago
Anyone knows who is the author of this jewish piece of wisdom?
His most close advisor, the arch-chief of the TEMPLE WHICH MUST BE BUILT BY ALL WORKMEN FROM ALL COUNTRIES.
That is the pure judo-masonic FORMULA.
Stop dividing the world - it's a jewish privilige. You'll be the blues, and you'll be the reds - and while you fight a mortal war, THE RICHES OF THE WORLD will be the jewish possession. The US jews did TAKE for nothing the whole of the British empire to 1946. That's the reason .
rusmalbel 5 months ago
It is quite probable, accordingly, that the non-English-speaking nations, which constitute the vast majority of the population of the world, will not agree to submit to a new slavery.
umenyanevsedoma 5 months ago
What's the hell?!!! Soviets were about to begin another war?!!! Was this guy out of his mind?!!! Soviets lost 20 million people in that war, where fighting non stop from 1941 to 1945 while the allies graciously decided to join them in 1944. Soviets were exhausted after 5 years of fighting nazis practically alone! So what new war they could possibly start? What a shamfull speech, such disrespect to those who lost their lives in that war! Godless man!
lttrhd 6 months ago
@lttrhd Despite the fact that they did... ever hear of the Eastern Bloc and the NATO pal? Don't bag on Churchill if you don't have your facts right. I mean its the god damn COLD WAR he's talking about.
Claydoberto 6 months ago
@Claydoberto No, he is not! Listen to the speech carefully - he very clearly makes analogies with the beginning of second world war! And what nato has to do with anything in this partifular case? Or eastern block, for that matter? You are arguing hust for the sake of arguing and I'm not interested in that, sorry.
lttrhd 6 months ago
@Claydoberto Actually, the "Cold War" hadn't really started yet. Russia was still considered allies of the United States at this time. Churchill's goal was to create suspicion toward the Russians among Americans. It worked. The term "Iron Curtain" was coined in this speech. From here, suspicions grew on both sides of that "Iron Curtain."
freedomofthought 3 months ago
yeh you fat prick. state obvious facts insted trying to help us. fighting along the allies was the biggest mistake in history of Poland. we should'ev joined Hitler, or even the commies. YOU left us like a piece of shit. someday, you will pay for it, and we will be there to piss on your remains.
IDeafpool 6 months ago
Before commenting on this speech, one should read the entire speech and not simply listen to a portion of it. Churchill believed firmly in the United Nations and thought that it should have its own military. What do you conservative nuts think about that?
thehistorywatcher 6 months ago
cheese pies
JaxinGodzilla 6 months ago in playlist Speeches
What a wonderful man. He called it spot-on, and he had seen this coming for miles. If only Roosevelt hadn't been such a fool that he took Joe Stalin for a real ally, and listened more to Churchill.
jdepps13 7 months ago
@azimuth30, it is referring to the period after World War Two when the Soviets had 'liberated' Eastern Europe from Nazism they created Communist governments in these areas and Churchill is commenting on the idea of a split in Europe - the East, Communist, censorship, poor / the West, Democratic, free press and rebuilding after the War.
fishbob1193 8 months ago
When is this speech from? What is the context?
azimuth30 8 months ago
@g33kwad no i disagree with you, there just anti american like alot of people! i dont blame them to be honest!
attitude05 9 months ago 2
@attitude05
Anti-American ? Churchill is British.
TheSorrow1O1 8 months ago
@TheSorrow1O1 Yeah, @attitude05, I believe he was making this speech IN America at the time.
Claydoberto 6 months ago 4
It's only 9 months on from the devastation at the end of the war, but Churchill observes a sinister quality to the Soviets, even though the war was fought with US, UK and Soviets as allies. Historian Eustice Mullins suggests that it's incredible that the Soviets could be perceived as a threat in a world with a powerful un-bombed and victorious US. But the cold war has to start somehow.
Sliptodance 9 months ago
I bet those 8 people that disliked the video are COMMYS! ! ! ! ! ! !
g33kwad 9 months ago 33
@historatia It sure does make the German Navy seem small when you disclude those 759 U-Boats they lost in WWII, doesn't it?
YOUTOOOB1 10 months ago
TOTALT FEDT MAN, GOD KULAVIG
MPthe1 10 months ago
The best leader to ever come out of the UK.
XxxSakura101 11 months ago 2
I love the history-discussion under my comment here :D
Emild00d 11 months ago
All of the 65 years of propaganda will NOT erase the observations that Britain with its foolish advice to its unstable Polish ally on the Danzig question INVITED the war to start, playing the Poles for DUPES. When Churchill could then have minimized the affair through a negotiated settlement he chose instead to GAMBLE and maneuvered TOWARDS a longer horrific war. This speech omits the "mea culpa" phrase (like that of Robert McNamara about admitting that Vietnam was a "mistake").
historatia 11 months ago
Hitler was wrong about Churchill. Churchill seemed incapable of understanding the manner in which Britain would LOSE even as it was a bit player in the crushing of Germany. Great man? NO! A "great man" would have worked towards minimizing the war and regaining the peace that was actually possible twice before the world exploded in 1941. A great man would have had better foresight on Soviet Communist intentions after Spain and considered Hitler as a potential anti-communist ally with Poland.
historatia 11 months ago
@historatia the war 'exploded' in 1939, peace couldnt have been acheived as Hitler was determined to conduct a long outright war, his economy was preparing for total war back in 1936! the 4 year plans made it even more clear. Churchill was one of the few who openly voiced his disgust at appeasement throughout the 30s as he knew it wouldnt work. he was always suspicious of stalin even way back at the teheran conferences but the russians were needed for their immense manpower to win the war!
meganisationlubracat 11 months ago
@meganisationlubracat You should try to think it possible that the propaganda you swallowed may NOT have been true. It was David Lloyd George in his speech at the Conference of Genoa who stated BLUNTLY that the way Versailles had left things Germany and Russia had a right to be angry. HE predicted war with a couple of years, or later, blaming the failures of Versailles of which he himself had been an architect. Its easy to push the blame for it all on Hitler...
historatia 11 months ago
@meganisationlubracat Hitler's coming was the DIRECT result of the veritably criminal carthagenian peace that Imperialist Britain agreed to with a very vindictive France. Between the grotesque unfairness of Versailles to the Germans, and the ridiculous exclusion of Gemany and Russia from international economic affairs arranged at the Conference of Genoa, 1922, (30.2% unemployment in Germany in 1931) the coming of a man like Hitler was not only foreseeable, but certain. ...
historatia 11 months ago
@meganisationlubracat You may believe that comic book propaganda you recite, but the best of academic investigations shows your premise to be completely wrong. " December 2nd, 1932 : Germany’s economy had not rallied despite the government’s cut backs and 20 million Germans were at the point of starvation. Begging was common place, there was nation-wide unemployment, and industries were failing."
historatia 11 months ago
@meganisationlubracat So Hitlers "navy" with 2 battleships, 3 heavy cruisers, 18 destroyers no aircraft carriers against the British 15 battleships, 66 cruisers, 184 destroyer and 66 submarines and 7 aircraft carriers, makes your claim a total joke. Furthermore his army in 1939 was SMALLER than France's in manpower artillery and tanks. What propaganda rubbish you believe with your bloated navy trying to hang on to the control of 1/4 of the world. Grow up.
historatia 11 months ago
@meganisationlubracat Believe from the propaganda what you will, but understand that Hitler was CORRECT about the outcome of the war (win or loose) for Britain, and when Churchill was given the chance to have the war stop early (1939 after the Polish campaign), after the Brits were let go at Dunkirk (June 1940), and when Hess flew in (May 1941) Churchill colossally misjudged. Churchill pulled the cork and today we can barely see the bubbles where you sank into irrelevance to the world.
historatia 11 months ago
@historatia i think it is incredibly offensive for you to argue that britain should have put its own overall importance above the ramifications of tyranny in europe. besides, even if the british empire had lasted a thousand years, they would say that it was their finest hour.
jonnyc4tw 11 months ago
@jonnyc4tw Quite to the contrary. You can believe that propaganda line if you want. What is "incredibly offensive" to civiiized people is the extraordinary tyranny that the British committed on the world for the entire colonial period. In 1943 alone Churchill refused to release the foot supplies and 4 million Bengali people starved to death. The British did nothing but subjugate, rape and pillage so much of the world for decades. Go read Philip Knightley "The First Casualty"...
historatia 11 months ago
@jonnyc4tw Did you know that in its GREED for world dominance and power it attacked the Boer Republics and KILLED OVER 50% OF THE CHILDREN UNDER 16 OF THE BOER FAMILIES IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Go read the facts of it. The British have NEVER concerned themselves with any human lives of others, only their own games of empire. Like I said, Britain should have worked for regaining the piece but the DID THE OPPOSITE and then murdered Hess at 93 still trying to hide it. Disgusting!. ...
historatia 11 months ago
@jonnyc4tw Churchill KNEW about Kitchener's camps and HID THE TRUTH. Some reporter, Mr. Churchill. watched children DIE and did nothing about it. The Canadians in the Boer war came back DISGUSTED by the British way of killing women and children of farmers like themselves, ashamed that they had had to take part. Read up on Emily Hobbhouse, a truly honourable Englishwoman. Besides in WW2 the Brits were an inconsequential force as far as the Germans were concerned. Finest hour? Market Garden? Oh..
historatia 11 months ago
@jonnyc4tw What is REALLY offensive from the Polish point of view is how the Brits weren't willing to live up to their treaty obligations and big mouth and send their huge navy into the Baltic to help the Poles. Hitler's tyranny? Is that the tyranny when he DELIBERATELY let the men leave from Dunkirk, rather then keep them as hostages to force a peace deal. Some tyranny. But Britain? Well in 1919 it forced a German City of 250,000 in to a "prison city" status. Stupidly arrogant Brits.
historatia 11 months ago
@historatia I'm slightly at a loss of how British strategic bombing in either World War 1 or 2 is a cause to describe the British as 'stupid' or 'arrogant'? Maybe you could articulate your overarching historical argument slightly more coherently? It looks like quite a few people on here would like to hear it. Are you just trying to discredit British foreign policy as a whole, or offer support for that of Germany? Either way, you seem to be incorporating a lot of irrelevant information.
alextomkins1 9 months ago
@alextomkins1 Good, let me help you here.
1. I am NOT intending to offer support to the Germans. That in WWI the Black Eagles fell --and all to the wave of radical socialism -- was truly their own doing. Britain, as part of the Entente managed to "stalemate" (NOT DEFEAT) the Germans in the west, but ARROGANTLY refused to credit the internal collapse of Germany to political forces sweeping Europe.
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
2. The British participated in the rape of Versailles and appears to have believed that that chopping of East Prussia from its homeland, and turning Danzig into an imprisoned city of nearly 300,000 Germans under de facto Polish control was "acceptable" and could lead to peace??? THAT is ARROGANT AND STUPID at the same time.
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
3. The British, French FAILED to STOP their client state POLAND from then invading Russia, Lithuania and the Ukrained -- and CONQUERING non-Polish territory EAST of the Curzon Line, --and with their Czech friends and forces from Canada ABANDONED their attempt to crush the Bolsheviks FLED in defeat (withdrew from Archangel). The Bolcheviks also defeated the USA and its ally Japan in Siberia. THAT defeat of Britain, France and the USA CHANGED the world.
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
4. Despite the Address David Lloyd George gave at the Conference of Genoa, WARNING THE POLES AND WARNING OF WAR, the British did NOTHING to correct the STUPIDITIES of Versailles that people like John Maynard Keynes and many others warned about. Poland had made ENEMIES of all its eastern neighbours by OCCUPYING Russian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian (East Galicia) settled lands and ethnic cleansing. Britain recognized the broken "balance of power" and DID NOTHING to regain stability.
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
8. I could spend the next hundred posts going through the threads of how Britain contributed so greatly to the resumption of war in 1939, but I think you get my drift. Hence my view of ARROGANCE that blinded and STUPIDITY that brought down the British Empire so VERY quickly after May of 1945. But let me add a few more.
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
9. When Germany moved in to Poland AFTER the British/French threat to support Poland, and only AFTER Polish Marshall Rydz Smigly began to move his Divisons into an ATTACK posture (including having an oil portrait painted of himself at the Brandengerg Gates, the Brits did NOTHING to calm the tensions and suggest that they negotiate on German repatriation of ITS OWN PEOPLE IN DANZIG. (Stupid.)
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
10. When, after the Brits KNEW that Stalin was still smarting from the Polish aggression onto non-Polish settled lands EAST of Lord Curzon's line, they KNEW from Deputy Soviet Foreign Minister Vishinsky that STALIN demand British help to get the Lithuanian, White Russian and Western Urkainian lands BACK. the British and French DID NOTHING. When Ribbentrop called on Molotov -- (while the Brits were also in Moscow negotiating) -- Stalin put the map to Ribbentrop. Hitler agreed!!
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
11. So Stalin wanted his land back and Hitler agreed and got his "non-aggression" pact, WHICH THE BRITISH WERE NOT PREPARE TO REQUIRE OF THE POLES.
12. After the Germans defeated the stubborn and strong polish military (with its better French tanks) the Germans kept seeking peace negotiations with the British and French. Was it smart for the BRITS to refuse to talk and instead moved into France and while Hitler replaced his major losses from the Polish campaign?
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
13. After the Germans blew the British back to Dunkirk and crushed the French in 1940, and HITLER LET THE BRITISH MEN GO RATHER THAN TAKE -- AS HE COULD HAVE -- 350,000 BRITISH PRISONERS -- why then decide still to NOT talk peace, especially KNOWING that Hitler war strongly anti-communist. Was it that Hitler -- who were pushing the Jews out but NOT killing them -- was so EVIL?
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
14 Was NOTHING sufficient to have the Brits consider PEACE as a good option? Then came the HESS affair that finally had the Brits murder him at 93. Where are the records of the discussions between the Brits and HESS who had come with a Professor Haushofer proposal to gain a peace? Why are they still secret?
historatia 9 months ago
@alextomkins1
15. In the end the British approach to all of this -- along with their American allies -- found themselves forced to assist Stalin and build up his power to then imprison eastern Europe for two generations. I know of no way of "rationalizing" that as a 'smart' and 'worthy' outcome for British, American and French actions. It should be a huge source of shame. Only the Americans and Soviets won from it. Smart?
historatia 9 months ago
@jonnyc4tw Please please please. The British enslaved 1/4 of the world in a captive empire, pillaged and oppressed hundreds of millions of people around the world, engaged its miltary to destroy the Boer republics and invented the Concentration camps that killed 50% of the CHILDREN under 16 in Africa -- to pillage the gold for Cecil Rhodes, -- and YOU want to play upstanding moral "ant-tyrant" on these pages?
Ridiculous!!! Britain ONLY ever acted in its OWN interest !!1
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat The historical facts do NOT support this piece of PROPAGANDA.
1. First, Versailles left Germany with a 100,000 man military without armour, airplanes, or, in reality, the ability to keep order in an emergency, never mind defend itself while the Poles and French ran a series of meetings (at the request and urging of Beck as the Polish leader) to attack and decimate the Germans.
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat
2. His first "economic plan" was aimed at the horrific MESS in which the Allies had forces Germany from the Conference of Genoa forward. Germany had 31% unemployment and hundreds or thousands living in holes in the ground. (Britain was 18% and able to use its empire for markets REFUSED to Germany. The first and largest financial program was HOME RENOVATIONS. (Go read Cambridge economist on Hitler's implementing the Keynes General Theory BEFORE Keynes published it!)
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat
3. In 2003 a economic analysis book came out in the United States showing that the claims of Hitler's economy going directly and only to an aggressive war footing was NONSENSE.
4. The French had once again invaded Germany (1923) and was threatening to do it again, -- read Gamelin's autobio.. and Poland was BREAKING agreements after Pilsudski died when they had a 500,000 fully equipped army..The stopped German coal shipment trains on the transit corridors to East Prussia.
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat
5. The ONLY piece of documenation used to support the "intentional war" theory is the Hossbach Memorandum written by Colonel Friedrich Hossbach in November 1937. Hitler's Military Adjutant. Both AJP Taylor and more recently Ian Kershaw disagree that the Memorandum makes any such plans. The "Intentionalist" school to which you obviously belong has NO basis for the claims you make.
historatia 9 months ago
@historatia well my claims are based on what hitler told goring he wanted for the economy to acheive, mainly self sufficiency (so they didnt become crippled by blockade of foreign goods like they did in ww1, and to make the economy ready for war! surely hitlers OWN dictation is good enough documentation over a historians interpretation? i respect your own opinion though the claim your making that Hitler was bullied into war by the french and poles is utterly ridiculous?!
meganisationlubracat 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat The answers to this are: Germany could NOT feed itself, and self-sufficiency was REQUIRED with the Germans locked out of foreign trade markets by the US, Britain and France. That policy is a "defence" measure, to reduce externally applied choking of Germany, and cannot be considered a "pro-war" effort. At Nuremberg (watch the films) Goering explained it differently than your propagandists did.
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat Perhaps before you dismiss the French and Polish danger to Germany, you should research the Polish-Soviet War of 1919 with its effects that went right up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact. Research the Promotheism project, and Miedmorze, and understand that Poland was NOT a democracy after Pilsudski's coup d'etat, but had its OWN BRAND OR POLISH NATIONAL SOCIALISM. Then go read French General Gamelin's memoirs of the visits of French and Polish military...
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat Try not to forget that the French were still working on pushing their territory to the Rhine in the 1920's and invaded Germany in 1923 again, and stayed for many years, and then tried to keep the German lands west of the Rhine demilitarized. (Imagine no British troops south of the Midlands?) The Poles also did military incursions at Annaberg, and then invaded Teschen before Hilter told them they could have it provided they would enter negotiations on Danzig. They welshed.
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat One of the more fascinating vignettes of the start of war is the meeting in Warsaw in Beck's palatial conference room with Beck, Skladkowski, Rydz-Smigly and their top central command staff. The smiling Rydz-Smigly, (after once again receiving the assurance from Beck that the French and British were attacking immediately stoop up and drank to Rydz-Smigly's salute "To Christmas in Berlin" (for which he had already posed for the oil painting that still exists."
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat One of the more nonsensical unfounded pieces of propaganda is that the Polish military -- 48 well-equipped divisions -- were easily overrun by the 63 German Divisions. The German losses were HEAVY, constituting about 30% of its armour against the very large numbers of excellent French built Schneider artillery, and near exhaustion of the Wehrmachts ammunition supplies. Placed into a 'defense' posture rather than 'counter-attack' the Poles could have prevailed.
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat I don't think "bullied" is the right word. The Poles and French made it easy for Germans to understand to re-arm themselves. The Poles COULD have been given access to the Baltic through Memelland between East Prussia and Lithuania RATHER than CUT OFF East Prussia and IMPRISON the German city of Danzig under de facto Polish Controls. Why wasn't that done? Any suggestions. In the whole of history, those actions rank as amongst the most incredibly stupid.
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat The thing you may be forgetting is that the Poles have this MYTHOLOGY of the Great Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th and 18th Century that finally rotted out of existence and collapsed in 1795. The Poles held the view that they were entitled to ALL the territory of that 'commonwealth' although Lord Curzon and the Americans said "only Polish settled". The Poles went on a rampage and GRABBED THE REST. After the coup in 1926, they tried to act as a "great power".
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat As soon as you can locate that "dictation" I'd like to see it. I believe you are referring to the Hossbach memorandum, summarizing a Novermber 1937 meeting and prepared FIVE DAYS after. It was introduced at Nuremberg. Hossbach survived the war, and DISPUTED parts of the changes made to it (he still had a copy of the original and disputed version supposedly captured by the British). Ian Kershaw and AJP Taylored dismissed the claims made about it in any case.
historatia 9 months ago
@meganisationlubracat
7. The Wehrmacht had NOT been built up to invade Russia. An examination of the Wehrmacht equipment showed that it could not possibly function in the conditions of Eastern Europe, nor reliably in winter. The Germans didn't even lay in winter military wear. Only in the figment of propagandized imaginations could anyone say the HITLER wanted to start a way and take over the world.
historatia 9 months ago
Instead Churchill conducted affairs to the END Point that HITLER had predicted in his reasoning of why the British would NOT continue with the war after 1940.. "Mr. Churchill knows fully well that if he engages us in a longer war IT WILL COST BRITAIN HER EMPIRE" . Hitler (speaking before the Holocaust started) was correct! When it was over India was gone in less than 24 months. As Suez showed, Britain was now an indebted slowly sinking island off Europe's coast.
historatia 11 months ago
Already at the Conference of Genoa in 1922, David Lloyd George warned of the coming of war given the behaviour of the Poles in grabbing Russian lands east of the Curzon Line and the untenable position into which Germany have been placed. He and EVERYBODY else KNEW that the carthagenian peace of Versailles was NOT tenable. CHURCHILL not only drove Britain into the ground with the Exchequer, but did NOTHING to ease that situation. ...
historatia 11 months ago
This speech is remarkable for the "hindsight" of hearing Churchill say that the whole war NEED NOT have happened. Yet when HE had a chance to stop it in October 1940 and again with Hess's desperate visit in May 1941. Churchill is the MOST RESPONSIBLE for the squabble over Danzig exploding into the vast war that it became. "How could he have been so STUPID?" and then give this speech? (which plagiarizes Goebbel's "iron curtain" phrase)
historatia 11 months ago
is this sped up...???
aashley9099 11 months ago
The U.S. and Britain sure could use leaders like FDR and Churchill at this juncture in history. In my humble opinion, the Western World now relies on lily-livered, dick-headed sellouts to run their governments.
primalpump10 1 year ago
@primalpump10
"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." Winston S. Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill what's your point? do you think I'm racist or something?
primalpump10 1 year ago
@primalpump10
I agreed with you...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Forgive me, I'm slightly tired and lethargic from hunger, but I don't see how an anti-Muslim comment reaffirms or fits with what I just said.
primalpump10 1 year ago
@primalpump10
The book was published in 1899... and like the events leading to WWII, "the Western World now relies on lily-livered, dick-headed sellouts to run their governments."
Islamic birth control is a bomb strapped to a ten year old child....
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Yea, I'm still not understanding the reference there. Btw, I don't want to sound like a puss, but you really shouldn't insult people's political or religious beliefs, even on the internet. You never know whom you might be offending.
primalpump10 1 year ago
@primalpump10
You think I care who is offended?
I'm 198 cm.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill hahaha that may be so, but just because you can say something without fear of being beaten to a pulp doesn't mean it's right to do so. and, I mean no offense, but the internet is a pretty convenient venue for someone to be boasting about how tall they are or how much they hate a certain group of people, isn't it?
primalpump10 1 year ago
@primalpump10
You don't seem to get it, do you? Take a shot mate... Give it your best...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill I don't know. I guess I'm just stupid. I honestly still don't get it.
primalpump10 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill that's pretty tall!!!
mikeywikey11 1 year ago
He and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had joined at Yalta to deliver Eastern Europe to Stalin, with the originator of the plan Alger Hiss.. And then unemployed was invited to give this speech. . So, i don't know. . yeah a great leader!
Tuphut 1 year ago
and they said he had a speech impediment. well he sure showed them.
chocolatefudgebrownl 1 year ago
A slightly better leader than Gordon Brown I tihnk...
Jordannadroj20 1 year ago 18
@Jordannadroj20 A 5 year old could run the country better than Gordon Brown
Pr0pagandaFilms 8 months ago
superdan1875
Wha shortcomings and faults would you say Churchill had?
salahuddin786 1 year ago
surely the greatest man of the 20th century
superdan1875 1 year ago
Britain an island of 40MN at the time was brutally occupying 1/4 of the World by sheer tyranny - this fat lump of camel crap in history books of the east was much much worse than Hitler ever was.
The British tyrants killed many times more people than Hitler ever did.
They got fucked in Afghanistan then and like now - Hitler was a lesser Devil than this Great Devil - it was because of the Lesser Devil than India etc were free from the Greater Devil.
Hitler was hence a better soul
salahuddin786 1 year ago
@salahuddin786 fuck of cunt you have no idea what your on about if it wasn't for Britain you think the world would have what it has today? we colonized this world, Australia, America just for a few, Hitler experimented on children and gassed millions just because he didn't like them, Britain colonized the world and admittedly killed thousands, but that's no different from every other empire in history, we got fucked in Afghanistan? i lol'd at how fucking thick you are, go fuck yourself asshole
ScouserLegend 1 year ago
@ScouserLegend
lmfao, yes you colonized the world... enslaved and massacred entire generations of peoples... from all over the world. grats.
MitziAlbright 1 year ago
@MitziAlbright no different from any other Empire so shut your fucking trap
ScouserLegend 1 year ago
@MitziAlbright
Chill out Canada, btw who is your Head of State? Oh thats right The Queen, Which country made yours? Oh thats right Britain. What language are you speaking? Oh thats rgiht English.
millard27 1 year ago 2
@salahuddin786
Should the Nazi regime have survived, then the people of the easy would have lamented the days of British rule.
Winston Churchill, given his faults was a great leader with great vision.
Had the yanks have listened to him, maybe the cold war would never have occured (google 'operation unthinkable')
superdan1875 1 year ago
@salahuddin786 Hitler was bad, Churchill was an evil fuck who cared only for his own country, and Stalin was the biggest scum of this earth.
piotrthesexypolak 1 year ago
What has happened to the speakers of the past, the great speakers who moved and motivated... why do we not have these type of models in our society now and what can we do to bring them back. Truly beautiful speech by Churchill!
XxdeathspunkxX 1 year ago
@XxdeathspunkxX Modern politicians have their speeches written and/or vetted by committees of speechwriters that ensure the maximum level of blandness to avoid any unpredictable results.
jlim2397 1 year ago
Education is sadly lacking amongst so many!
People like "askjiir" don't seem to realize that from his own racist comments he shows low intelligence and therefore is categorized as a sub-human!
"Teilhaus" also has no understanding of Hitler! He had a peace pact with Russia, little good it did them! He started by killing his own people in Germany under the T4 Program (look it up) and would have thought nothing of killing anyone, regardless of race or culture, had he won. Thank God for Churchill!
deathtofools 1 year ago
what does churchill say the soviets were doing?
babydevilz2000 1 year ago
what does churchill say the soviets are doing?
babydevilz2000 1 year ago
Certainly the smartest and on point of speeches. He knowing history saw what was on the horizon immediately. Then to state as we knew the Germans weren't so bad in the fact they reacted to an insufferable humiliating defeat. With the worst in reparations and leaving germany with no dignity no money and no way out but war. The United States implementing the Marshal Plan saved a WWIII. We lifted up and weren't there to conquer.
MrJeffnow 1 year ago
Churchill should never have needlessly taken us to war with Germany, look at the state of us now as a direct result of that decision, our countries invaded with limitless numbers of non-whites to the point where we will soon be out-numbered in our own countries, anti-white Jew monopolized media, anti-white "leaders", out of control crime, decadence and degeneracy.
teilhaus 1 year ago
@teilhaus
Your right. I wish Germany would have been allowed to kill all those filthy jews and subhumans. Churchill ruined that plan, he should have let Hitler rule central and eastern Europe. So we now could live in a great Eurasian Empire.
Where the entire world is white. Free from all niggers and muslims.
askjiir 1 year ago
@teilhaus churchill did not take ua to war with germany , it was chamberlain, also other races where about same time as white, maybe even before,
Andy666851 1 year ago
@Andy666851 Churchill could still have stopped the needless war at any time, Hitler wanted a peace with Britain, and by God we should have given him one. When did I say other races were not about at thye same time as Whites? It doesn't mean we should have our countries invaded with limitless millions of them to the point where we will soon be out-numbered in our own countries and our race wiped out through mongrelization.No other race would put up with it in their own country, neither should we.
teilhaus 1 year ago
@teilhaus i agree that most nations would not openly support this however, it has happened before and it will happen again. The Spanish *and i mean from Spain* used to be pale skinned. There are still pail skinned Spanish but how many do you see that are from Spain that are not pail skinned? Even with Spanish parents? There gene pool has been mixed with various cultures that they had won against. Just as the US has against the Spanish and native cultures. You take others land you mix with them.
DarkPrynce 1 year ago
@DarkPrynce yep I agree. Thats how aids spread lol
cheifbrownface 1 year ago
Churchill was merely helping begin the Cold War by reinforcing the fear of Communism. He had seen the breakdown of good relations with the USSR after WW2
xOliviaxThexDead 1 year ago
I've always wondered, what were the dimensions of the Iron Curtain? And where is it stored today? A warehouse in Russia I guess???
69Bluntsmoka420 1 year ago
The issue of the official trial of the Nazi Josef Stalin raised and at the Teheran Conference in 1943, and at Yalta in the 45-m. But Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were opposed to judicial proceedings. They believed that the captured members of the Nazi leadership to lynch on the spot. Stalin saved my country and the world from the fascist plague, and your Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill - Fools in the service of Jewish Bin Laden
Rusland1976 1 year ago
churchill has a warmonger who clamored for British and US involvement in WWII
Kolef88 1 year ago
The Naivity of the USA caused the Cold War.
Churchill warned against it, but like Chamberlain before, Roosevelt foolishly trusted his own judgement.
superdan1875 1 year ago
As an American I can say that Churchill is one of the greatest leaders in Western History
bluesboy25000 1 year ago
@bluesboy25000
it must make you proud as an American to know that Churchill was half American and damned proud of it!
superdan1875 1 year ago
@superdan1875 Hell Yeah. To all of my friends who are Britons, I apologize for my country America making an ass out of you when our previous President dragged you guys into Iraq. We shouldn't have gone there. Let's forget Bush and Blair and go back to Roosevelt and Churchill shall we?
bluesboy25000 1 year ago
@bluesboy25000
better study your history man. Churchill and Roosevelt together facilitated Stalin's reign of terror and the despotic Bolshevik/Communist regime that ruled the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc nations with an iron fist for 50 years and resulted in the deaths of over 25 million people.
Kolef88 1 year ago
how do i dowload this ??????????????/
TheKieranbrown 2 years ago
great man.
doggininmymoggin 2 years ago
Strong Conservatives, like Churchill, Thatcher, and your Reagan, are the type capable of building strong nations. All others, such as your Carter and Obama, only bleed nations to death.
MrBlackBrit 2 years ago
strong militaries NOT strong nations.
ilkkavu 1 year ago
over het ijzeren gordijn die later in berlijn kwam (duitsland)
Fifa07cup 2 years ago
he seems a bit chubby. i guess his ego makes up for that...
lionvanilla 2 years ago
Churchill was without a doubt one of the greatest orators in history. Shame about his political views...
tsimon1234 2 years ago
@tsimon1234 I don't see it. He seem rather averge and at best seems good.
jay123tysk 1 year ago
@jay123tysk Have you heard all of his speeches. They all very well written. However this is only my opinion.
tsimon1234 1 year ago
@tsimon1234 no I have not. I have heard a few though. I think you are right that they are well written I do not despute that at all instead what I was refering to was the word "orator". He is good at writing his speaches (if he did indeed write them since most politicians do not), but I do not feel he is good at stering emotions like say a Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Mendella or even Hitler. That for me is what makes someone a great orater not just the words but how they are expressed.
jay123tysk 1 year ago
@jay123tysk Fair point, But this is not one of his best read speeches. While the words here are good it is not delivered so well. However many of his other speeches are very well delivered. As for Malcolm X? Racist bastard, don't even mention that anti-Semitic violent idiot again. While he was fighting for a good cause, he went about it in a completely wrong way. And Hitler? Maybe, but I find that most of speeches are simply hate filled rants.
tsimon1234 1 year ago
@tsimon1234 @tsimon1234 I am not saying I agree with the the people I mentioned, all I am saying is they were really good at conveying emotion and getting people to connect and believe in what they were saying. Imagine if you had the same skill they possed and used it to further a good cause. That is the Ideal, the combination of a good message and good delivery. I look to take whatever is useful no matter the source and I discard what is not. In this their message.
jay123tysk 1 year ago
Fair enough.
tsimon1234 1 year ago
@jay123tysk
listen to his choice of words, not his speech impediment.
superdan1875 1 year ago
what year was this?
confusedhebru 2 years ago
1946.
khakimidget 2 years ago
??.??
dylankieft 2 years ago
wtf, were is this going about?
i 'don't understand
rachellepink 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol Churchill is a fucking traitor who started the cold war
Scoutrussp7 2 years ago
churchill did not start the cold war, it was mostly the americans and the soviets.
snipersam3 2 years ago 24
@snipersam3 there are a lot of things that started the cold war...but it could be easily dumbed down to Soviet and American aggression
gydeme 1 year ago
@snipersam3
The Cold War wasn't just between the Americans and Soviets, they were just the only superpowers at that time. It began over ideological differences Capitalism-Communism and began when Churchill/Roosevelt decided that the allies weren't going to take any territory for themselves. The Soviets had other plans and kept Eastern Europe. But it had its origins long before the war, (ideology) and the only reason England and America were allied with Russia was because they had a common enemy.
eghasaelpis 1 year ago
@snipersam3 This speech is seen by many historians as the start of the cold war
Elephantswithsquaids 1 year ago
@Elephantswithsquaids I disagree. I would prefer Yalta to be the start because it's where the Allies began planning post war plans and it was assured that the allies would occupy a portion of what ever land each country they liberated. The USSR wanted a buffer zone for any future invasions and they were set on creating a mass Soviet influence eastern europe. Im not calling down your theory im just putting forward my opinion.
texting965 1 year ago
@Elephantswithsquaids
some people claim the cold war started in 1919 when the allies supported the whites against the reds in russia
Denmarkforever1 1 year ago
@snipersam3 Churchill had a very strong sense of the danger Britain would be in if the US withdrew into isolationism and left Britain to face Stalin in Europe all alone--a repeat of 1940. It is fortunate that he lost the 1945 election, because he travelled around the US in 1946, alerting America to the threat of a triumphant USSR bestride the Eurasian continent. C did not start the Cold War. The Cold War is a perverse extention of the immediate post-War period when Stalin was a threat .
mc0558 1 year ago
@snipersam3
.....it was mostly atlee and fucking truman.... Russia actually got fucked over by the Western powers at the end of WW2. if they had given him at least some of the reparations he wanted then there would have been no cold war
MitziAlbright 1 year ago
Obama? He is nothing.. he s a community organizer. Thats it. No military record, no amazing achievements, just his decrepit Chicago and ACORN fraud & sexploitation foundation emerging in his wake. Higher powers at work here, Obama nothing more than figurehead. Presidential position nothing more than figurehead. Wall St. and Corporation are what run world policy. Federal Reserve, WBO, etc. all globalists whos agenda is one-world govt. & currency.
escalade80 2 years ago
Riiight
tpoucat 2 years ago
hej 3.x!
altandetvartaget2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No comparing betwin Obama and fat Churchill!
Instrumentish 2 years ago
Yeah there is actually.
Churchill was a great leader etc.
What's Obama done ? in my view he's a weakling.
GLASGOWBOY1990 2 years ago
yeah,
i do not think obama even deserves the noble peace prize,
he still has not shown any signs of removing world tensions - take the sending of even more troops to afghanistan.
Galacticmaster 2 years ago 2
An Ayyyhharn Curtain, lol
WarThug13 2 years ago
I see alot in Obama in what I see in Churchhill. YEAH RIGHT. HAHAHA. Obama and his canned Bilderburger/socialist/extreme leftist speeches make me sick. Impeach that man, somebody!! Us constv,/rep. are counting on the bluedogs these days.. stand up for freedom liberty not ideology an socialism people!
escalade80 2 years ago
esclade80,
What evidence do you have that makes Obama a socialist? Because he gave money to corporations so they won't fold?Because he is trying to bring forth a somewhat gov't run health care?
colbertLOTR91 2 years ago
You see his is why we can't make any process. These people living in tards land watching cnn all day... at rick of sounding like "all other republicans"... Listen to fox or hanity... all you do is say things like," go see hanity he will tear you up." He is freaking raping you. he is right on your ass and you know it. And trying to bring forth "somwhat" of a healthcare system... He is trying to make it gov't run... nice try.
911experta 2 years ago
Umm,I have no idea what you said everything up to "And trying to bring forth "somwhat" of a healthcare system... He is trying to make it gov't run... nice try. " you were rambling too much.What I think you tried to say was that I watch CNN?I do not watch CNN or any other American news media.Now what Obama is proposing is nothing close to what is offered in the rest of the Industrialized world, that is why I say somewhat cause his proposal offers a govt insurance with private competition.
colbertLOTR91 2 years ago
lol, ya'll kill me, yes, the U.S. and the Brits defeated the Nazis together, but, the russians would have never stopped. they would have never stopped no matter what the cost.
roberthfl 2 years ago
Russians took heaviest casualties during the war.. Entirely possible if US and Brit had to face an eastern-theatre outcome may have been much different if Russians had been defeated. Let us not forget our millions of dead Red brothers who gave their lives opposing Fascism! Even thou not popular Russians still I'd say took at very least 40% of German Army with no contingent forces.
escalade80 2 years ago 3
Stalingrad was crucial during the war, 26million Russian casualties
l00t3rsp00n 2 years ago 5
well yes,
but stalin wiped out over 20million in the purges, so its nothing really
Galacticmaster 2 years ago 2
@l00t3rsp00n Why 26 million? Say it 26 billion! Military losses of the Second World 1:1.3. and if the Soviet Union started the war properly, without betraying the Soviet generals and marshals, all Europe would be Soviet. through year 2.
Rusland1976 1 year ago
@l00t3rsp00n casualties dont mean anything about being crucial, it just means a lot of your soldiers died. not trying to be mean or anything but the russian war strategy was horrible
paulinotou 1 year ago