Winston Churchill was one of the greatest human to ever live, he saw right through fagtler sneaky bullshit and completely crushed his bands of subhuman genocidal nazi pedophiles without mercy, forever destorying their dreams about aryan world and saving humanity from nazi tyranny.
>>18766082Hero who saved White civilisation by genociding savage germanic apes without mercy
>>18766082He was the hero who genocided nazi pedophiles by millions
He was a good goyim.
>>18767540pedophile seethe
>>18766082>Churchill
>>18766082He saved the world by genociding nazi child groomers without mercy
>>18767602>saving the world is when you suicide your nation by importing gorillions of third world shit-skinsinteresting take
>>18767604seethe more, child predator
>>18767607>you're a pedo nazi if you don't support destroying all western nations by replacing their populations with shit-skins from the third worldalso an interesting take
>>18767610seethe more, pedophile
>>18767611you're a fucking loser who couldn't make a real argument if your life depended on it
>>18766082British and Polish Gods always genocide germanix pedophiles without mercy
>>18767612seethe more, groomer
People forget that Churchill was already retired by the 1920s. He was nationally famous even before WW1. He'd be into politics since his late teens, and by WW2 rolled round, he'd been in politics for 50+ years at that point.THAT SAID...The USSR and the Russians are 100% to blame for killing so many Germans. 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front. When it comes to Britain versus Germany, more soldiers died in a single battle in WW1 than the entire of WW2. The UK barely did any real fighting: they won air superiority, farted around in North Africa, tried a bombing campaign with minimal casualites (comparatively speaking), but they avoided a direct confrontation for most of the war. Churchill's biggest mistakes were: 1) allowing France to drag the UK into war, 2) giving the USA access to the Sterling Economic Area, thus basically destroying the Empire, and 3) giving too many concessions to the Russians (but not as much as FDR did )
>>18766082Churchill was needed to erase the enormous humiliation that UK sustained at the hands of Germany in 1938-1939
>>18767654Most Germans died when Germans were already about to lose anyway and Germany was just wasting manpower to slow down the Soviets. Britain may have been not as relevant as the U.S., but nonetheless played an important part in denying Germany vital reapurces by the blockade, tying up Italian and German forces in Africa and forcing Germany to divert a significant part of its industry to the air- and naval war. Just killing German conscripts on horseback doesn't mean the USSR was more important.>>18767614Polish BNWo goddesses always provide fertile wombs for their Turkish BVLLS
>>18767654And you're one of those boomers who only look at boots on the ground, not the actual munition statistics, which is that Germany spent most of its production fighting the west (aircrafts, naval, anti-air guns etc).Nearly 50% of Germanys total munition production was spent on single-engine aircrafts, the overwhelming majority of them dedicated to defend German airspace from allied bombing.15% on navy. 10% on anti-air guns.Only 5-8% of total munitions were spent on tanks, which was primarily dedicated eastAdd the fact that N.Africa while being a sideshow, was extremely consuming for Germany. A single DAK division consumed more than 10 division in Russia because of the logistical complexity in the Mediteranian sea and the North African desolated landscape that lacked infrastructure, and the overall overseas distance.Add also the fact that allied bombing destroyed like 30% of German production, a 30% that is never shown on the statistics as these tanks and artilleries and aircrafts and rifles never made it to the battlefield (which they otherwise would have).Add also the fact that allied naval blockade of Germany since September 3rd 1939 all the way to 1945 had completely strangled Germany of vital resources which severely limited her production and strategic capabilityAlso, allied battles are extremely underrated for reasons I do not know. The battle for Tunis for example was a catastrophe for Germany almost equal to Stalingrad in terms of losses (300.000 captured, 500 tanks lost, 3000 aircrafts lost, entire Mediteranian navy lost) since Tunis recieves some of Germanys best equiptments such as the earliest tiger tank productions and many veteran divisionsAlso Britain for some reason is criminally neglected when Operation Overlord is discussed, since the majority of equiptment and troops committed to the invasion were BritishThis also neglecting everything committed in Asia and the strategic value of maintaining the Burma front for the war effort
Slavic and Anglo-Jewish gods always rape and genocide germs
>>18767940For every 5 German soldiers, 4 were killed by Russians. Nuff said. Churchill is a nice scapegoat, because he's an undefended target. Liberals hate him, so it's easy for you to shift the entire blame of Germany's military failures onto him. >Add also the fact that allied bombing destroyed like 30% of German production,I mean, it's a war dude. Those are justified targets, especially when you're trying to avoid outright confrontation on the ground. Churchill did everything right in this situation.
>>18766082hero who allied with Stalin to help him rape germonkeys without mercy
>>18767952>For every 5 German soldiers, 4 were killed by Russians. Nuff said.Yes but its still not a fair assessment because you're completely ignoring munition statistics because ....I dont know why. It should be just as important as manpower statistics, if not more impiortant because manpower is worthless without its munition.
>>18767955This retard also ignores that most Germans died when the war was already lost and that if we take other casualties (mainly POW's) into consideration, the Russians only caused 60% of the importsnt German casualties.
>>18767955And you think what you're doing is a also a fair assessment? You're shifting the entirety of German's military failures/causalities onto Churchill. That's just silly. Churchill tried his damndest to avoid any war/confrontation. Im sorry Hitler is retarded and decided to invade Russia, but that wasn't Churchills fault.
>>18767962He is a retard no doubt, because he also thinks my post was moralizing the bombing campaign with his "lul its war duuddeee, those were justified targets".My post never said the bombing campaign was (or wasnt) justified. My post merely highlighted the strategic value of the allied bombing by pointing out the impact on German munition production (I also didnt mention that allied bombing nearly disrupted over 90% of German synthetic oil production), but somehow he was unable to read this.He also writes like hes is 14 years old.
>>18767965>Churchill tried his damndest to avoid any war/confrontation>Im sorry Hitler is retarded and decided to invade Russia, but that wasn't Churchills fault.What? Germany invaded Russia in 1941. The British had been at war with Germany for two years before then
>>18767965>You're shifting the entirety of German's military failures/causalities onto Churchill.When did I do that?Are you a troll?>And you think what you're doing is a also a fair assessment?Yes, because I consider manpower and munition production. I dont exclude one or the other.
>>18767965>Churchill tried his damndest to avoid any war/confrontation.Now you're just trolling.Churchill was vocal about a confrontation with Germany long before 1939, and he was the most vocal about continue the war with Germany during the may 1940 debate within the cabinet.The only ones second to Churchill would be Attlee and Greenwood.You really need to stop posting. Everything you say is bullshit and every interpretation and conclusion that you make on what others say is also bullshit.
>>18767965>Churchill wanted peace with Hitler but was sadly forced to declare war on Germany due to Operation Barbarossa :(Me when I learn history from youtube shorts
>>18767974>The British had been at war with Germany for two years before thenIn the English speaking world, that time period is called the "Phony War", because no major military shenanigans actually took place. > I consider manpower and munition production. I dont exclude one or the other.LMAO...but you are? You are trying so, so, so, so hard to downplay that out of fucking 10 soldiers, 8 were killed on the Eastern Front. Again, because he's an easy target for leftists and stormweenie conspiracy theorists on the right. It's two sides of the same coin. >>18767981>>18767985>Churchill was vocal about a confrontation with Germany long before 1939, Being vocal about a possible war, doesn't mean he wants one. Do you understand the difference? Hitler was more Hawkish, Churchill was more Dovish. But both can be equally as vocal about a war. "Hitler dindu nuffin! is what you sound like">he was the most vocal about continue the war with Germany during the may 1940 debate within the cabinet.Why would the UK be comfortable at that point surrendering? It would make no sense.
>>18767990>Why would the UK be comfortable at that point surrendering? The may cabinet debate wasnt about surrendering, it was about whether or not initiate diplomatic talks for a settlement with Germany. There is a major difference between surrender and a negotiated peace.>"Hitler dindu nuffin!" is what you sound likeBecause your interpretations and conclusions on the point being made are complete bullshit since Hitler was never mentioned in my post.>Being vocal about a possible war, doesn't mean he wants oneYou didnt say he never wanted a war, which I never said he didnt.You said he did everything to avoid a war, which I said isnt true because he was likely the absolute most vocal MP about the necessity to confront Germany.I dont even think you yourself are aware of what point you're making or what is being argued.
>>18767990>LMAO...but you are? You are trying so, so, so, so hard to downplay that out of fucking 10 soldiers, 8 were killed on the Eastern Front.It's not us downplaying the manpower factor.It's you downplaying every other factor.Germany didnt lose the war because of collapsing manpower.
>>18767993The thing is, your kind always come to the table with a sympathetic view of the Germans and Hitler in general, or a biased view of the English, based off either a conspiracy theory or envy, so a real discussion is impossible.FACT: Hitler was without a doubt the most Hawkish leader of the 21st century. There is no denying this. His whole shtick is about warfare. He can sugarcoat it, and you might believe it, but a the end of the day, every single death in WW2 was entirely on his shoulders. This whole thread's purpose is to blame Churchill, my guy. >it was about whether or not initiate diplomatic talks for a settlement with Germany. So, in your mind....the UK should make concessions to Hitler, because....why? Lol. By then, the only reason to talk to Hitler is if you're scared of anticipating what could have happened. >>18768004>Germany didnt lose the war because of collapsing manpower.>If you kill your enemies, they winSo, 1,000,000+ casualties in the final months of the war... isn't a big deal? That's a new one. I don't think any major commanderl in history would agree with you, but sure.
>>18768012>or a biased view of the EnglishMy post with the pic highlighted British strategic contribution to ww2Why?Because the post I qouted was minimizing British strategic value since the post I quoted only focused on manpower statistics to conclude strategic worth between UK and USSR.And then you accuse me of being biased when I try to counter-weight with some nuance> based off either a conspiracy theory or envy, so a real discussion is impossible.I'm literally quoting from O'brien - How the war was won. The quotes are directly in the pic related posted earlier.Quoting a economic historian isnt "conspiracy theory or envy".The outcome of ww2 was absolutely dictated by production power, resource advantage and logistical capability>FACT: Hitler was without a doubt the most Hawkish leader of the 21st century.We're not even debating Hitler so I dont even know why you brought him up.We were debating whether or not Churchill did everything to avoid a war with Germany or not. A claim you made>So, in your mind....You've constantly made bullshit interpretations and conclusions on everything I have said.You literally thought my post with the pic was moralizing the allied bombing when it very strictly only highlighted the strategic value of the bombing.Every time you read my posts, you have a distorted expectation on what you think I am saying (and you reply based on that) vs what I am actually saying (which you mostly ignore)>the UK should make concessions to Hitler, because....why?Not even remotely related to the point madeThe point made was that Churchill did not try to avoid a war with Germany (compared to other British MPs who considered mediation to end hostiltiies), and that there is a major difference between the term surrender and the term negotiated peaceAgain, every time you read my posts, you have a distorted expectation on what you think I am saying (and you reply based on that) vs what I am actually saying (which you mostly ignore)
>>18768012>So, 1,000,000+ casualties in the final months of the war... isn't a big deal? Never said they werent a big deal, merely said that it wasnt the defining factor, so other factors should be considered as well.The reason German losses mounted in the final year of the war was because manpower no longer had munitions to match the allies and the soviets.What good is manpower when soldiers lack explosives, guns, fuel, tracked veichles, air support etc.>I don't think any major commanderl in history would agree with you, but sure.They actually would.In fact US commanders knew they were severely outnumbered against Japanese defenders in terms of manpower but had overwhelming firepower to compensate because the US could produce 100 aircraft carriers while Japan could barely construct 2.
>>18767965>Churchill apparently declared war on Germany over Hitler's invasion of RussiaLmao did you confuse Chamberlain with Churchill and Russia with Poland
>>18767965What?
>>18767965Churchill was specifically appointed prime minister in 1940 because of his reputation as being an anti-German warmonger going back to 1914
>>18767965>Churchill was apparently pro-Hitler nowThis board's IQ goes down every day
>>18767856>denying Germany vital reapurces by the blockadeThe nazis got all the steel and iron they wanted, or could handle industrially. The blockade was almost worthless.>, tying up Italian and German forces in AfricaA waste of resources in a backwater theater that the nazis mostly ignored. > forcing Germany to divert a significant part of its industry to the air- and naval war.What naval war? The nazis had no navy. They had submarines, which would have ended the bongs had the US not intervened. And the early bong bombing attacks couldn't hit the broad side of a country.
>>18767940>Operation Overlord is discussed, since the majority of equiptment and troops committed to the invasion were BritishOkinawa was bigger. Not a bong in sight.
>>18766082He did not really do much crushing. He resisted very well. He did have a key role in stopping the Nazis by stubbornly refusing any settlement or subjugation, but this also completely demolished the British Empire, resulting in the pitiful shell that is now the UK. He won a Pyrrhic victory.
>>18768004>Germany didnt lose the war because of collapsing manpower.This was a huge part of their loss, numale.
>>18768012>....the UK should make concessions to Hitler, because....why?How about they not declare war on Germany, since they're feeble and incapable of fighting that war?
>>18768126No, it was because he was an untrustworthy rat and both sides knew it. Perfect for a wartime coalition.
