Why did he do it?

Do what?

>>17842187 (OP)
He was a Polish-American

>>17842187 (OP)
aabadhadaskahsdkm

>>17842195
You know

>>17842187 (OP)
The only thing he did wrong was not forcing the West to go through with Operation Unthinkable.

>>17842206
Oh of course, it's obvious really
You see Churchill was a big fan of the Bismarck's welfare system that had been introduced in Germany, and he believed that the better quality of life that it achieved for German workers was part of what had lead to German success. He also feared the growing possibily of a class war occuring within Britain (hence his earlier support of the People's budget). Overall I think he cared more about the overall health of the country than the true advancement of the social welfare state (his latter opposition to trade unionism perhaps makes this obvious), so the final bill was very moderate, only affecting those who were actually in work and not providing any help to their dependants. But I think it is worth remembering that this was still very radical for the time, the conservatives practially thought Churchill and the rest of the liberals were trying to destroy the British state from within, and things were already tense enough, with the budget and Irish home rule and all that, so I think we must be fair on him and remember that the National Insurance act was still a massive improvement for the lives of the British working class and, for 1911 Britain, truely a great achievement, perhaps one of the best achieved by the liberal government.

>>17842195
Whiskey and cigars.

>>17842277
The real question is why aren't you doing them? Life's a lot more fun with whiskey and cigars, can't say I blame him

>>17842187 (OP)
Like most pawns of the plutocracy, he was upside down in debt. This made him an ideal puppet for his financial backers.

The more the political class depends upon their financial backers to be solvent, the more they get to dictate policy.

There were several times where Churchill gambled his way to (the present equivalent of) multi million dollars in debt. Any one of those times would have fully ruined him and made him go from being an aristocrat to having literally nothing.

But he was given massive lumps of cash to restore him to being a wealthy aristocrat, on several different occasions.... then he'd gamble it all away again.

Rinse and repeat.

I think without his wealty finanzjuden, he would have been more or less indifferent towards what was happening in Central Europe. A lot more like Neville Chamberlain.

It wasn't really in Britain's best interest to fight against the Nazis.

>>17842187 (OP)
The obsession that /pol/dancers have with individual personalities is actually a pretty good insight into how they see history as a whole. Churchill himself is largely not relevant, he was a product of 19th century European upper class thinking, his actions were wholly in line with that of any statesman from his era and you could've replaced him with anyone from that cadre and get the same outcomes. The notion that Churchill single handedly is the reason why Britain fought in WW2 is very child-like thinking.

>>17842355
>more or less indifferent towards what was happening in Central Europe. A lot more like Neville Chamberlain.
It was Chamberlain who wanted to oppose Germany and worked to lay the groundwork fir that to happen from an otherwise pacifist Britain.
You're just parroting the normie appeasement myth that Chamberlain was Le stupid and got played, when in reality it was Hitler who got outmaneuvered.

>It wasn't really in Britain's best interest to fight against the Nazis.
Curious how every single MP in the house and parlament voted for war and every cabinet member (except Halifax) wanted to continue the war (and it should also be said that Halifax was a strong supporter for war with Germany in 1939 even though he advocated for peace in 1940), including all party leaders like Attlee, Sinclair and Chamberlain, plus the king.
Retards like you pretend that Churchill was some sort of larger than life dictator if not a demigod, who could just do whatever he wanted.

Most likely because you're an amerimutt with the meme mutt education and consequently don't understand basic parlamentarism. You also have normie-tier understanding of ww2 fueled with some zoomer history bitchute video stormfag propaganda because you don't understand what Chamberlain was actually attempting to accomplish by depriving Hitler of his casus belli while creating public opinion for confrontation if Hitler continued to take more, and buying time for British rearmament.
Instead you seemingly bought Churchills post-war version of events where Chamberlain was simply dumb and naive for trusting Hitler, and that everyone 'should have listened to the brilliant Mr Churchill from the start and should continue to do so.

>>17842435
Because they don't actually know any history outside of anything that touches Germany or ww2.

Churchill had a do-or-die attitude towards the British empire and her rivals that were closely aligned with characters like Horatio Nelson, whom during the time when Britain was obsessively attempting to confront France at every opportunity, famously said: "You must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king: and you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil".

>>17842488
Horatio Nelson wasn't a cuck to the US

>>17842488
Had those same words been said but with Germany instead of France in the context, the /pol/tards would be screaming juden influence.

>>17842501
>If a change a quote, then it means something different
Very profound

>>17842508
I accept your concession retard. Learn history and you will find out that Churchill wasn't some demigod, and that ww2 from Britain's perspective was just business as usual.

>>17842538
Explain why Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter >>17842498

>>17842562
>Closer cooperation among states and end of wars of annexation
>Makes stormfag seethe

Imagine my shock

>>17842666
So was Churchill a devout British imperialist or not? Make up your mind.

>>17842666
You can't be an pro-imperialism and also be against 'wars of annexation.' That's what imperialism is.

>>17842562
Must have been the Jews

>>17843246
The alcohol more likely

>>17842187 (OP)
WW2 was fought because banking & finance, he would not let a central bank run the money supply in Germany

https://rumble.com/v3jj4nw-documentary-all-wars-are-bankers-wars.html

>>17842218
He (but really Britain itself) couldn't actually project that sort of strength anymore. Everyone was already sick of putting down the second German chimpout. Only America had the manpower and industrial base to carry out another offense like that. Even if Roosevelt wasn't a commie faggot, it would've led to massive public disapproval and riots.

>>17843299
Reminder that Hitler let the bankers he captured go free.

>>17842187 (OP)
>Be irrelevant and humiliated drunk
>gamble and drink your way into complete default
>get a fuckin huge loan from several Jewish aristocrats
>you just gotta lobby for war ole winny boy
>catastrophically fuck up, the war is basically lost by mid 40
>every politician and general wants peace so the empire could be preserved
>enemy wants peace too
>sell the empire to the U.S so you can stay in the war
>be drunk the whole time
>kill millions of people
>disposed of the picosecond after the war concludes
>Britain is lost
>Europe is in ruins
>America dethrones you and takes your spot as global hegemon

>>17843299
>>17843360
Hitler captured numerous members of the turboJew Rothschild banking crime family and let every single one of them go unharmed. Apart from the gentile woman who had married in and was going to ask for a divorce if she survived the war. She mysteriously died a matter of days before the war ended.

>>17843608
>every politician and general wants peace so the empire could be preserved
Except not, dumb cunt.

>>17843631
It is a well known fact that most in the high command and Churchill's own party desired peace. They accurately predicted that to "win" this war would be the end of the empire.

>>17843640
>Majority of Conservatives wanted peace
>they voted to continue the war
Hmm....

>>17843686
Chuchill mind controlled them with ancient Jewish magicks given to him by the Rothschilds, is his excuse, I bet.

>>17843686
Yeah I'm not saying they numerically had the advantage in Parliament. But the War cabinet and general staff, with notable figures like Halifax, sought for an end to the war. Pretty much everyone of any importance and with adequate knowledge of German strength knew that the British Empire would have to be sold in order to continue the world and the Jews had a man who was willing to do that in Churchill.

>>17843718
continue the war*

>>17843718
Anybody with adequate knowledge knew the Empire was finished and that Germany was a existential threat to the UK that had to be destroyed at all cost.

>German strength
Lol? What strength? It was a failed state that was ripping itself apart. The UK predicted they would invade the USSR from the start and their only error was assuming it would happen in 1943.

>>17843718
>war cabinet all vote to continue the war
Why lie about something so well known?

>>17843722
>Germany was a existential threat to the UK that had to be destroyed at all cost
>What strength? It was a failed state that was ripping itself apart
Hmm....

>>17843750
Because the peace sentiments were quite strong, you ever wonder why they still haven't declassified 95% of their files on Hess? Britain very nearly left the war in 40/41, pretty much everyone was confused as to why they were deciding the stick it out. After the war there was quite a bit of revisionism but it was not at all a clear thing that the war might be winnable in some universe until the German assault ran out of steam at the gates of Moscow in December of 41.

He was brought and paid for by the jews.

>>17844611
What's that got to do with you lying about the war cabinet wanting peace?

>>17843217
It is when you already have your Empire and don't want any more land

>>17844676
I argued that most members of the war cabinet and various people in the general staff were opposed to continuing the war. There were strong sentiments for peace and though they kept up appearances and went with the general party line, these sentiments didn't not exist. The Royals even had a plan at one point to replace Churchill after he got in to office. You seem to be obsessed with me "lying" about some cry for peace among the broader people, that was not what I said, I even named one of the very influential figures responsible for desiring peace.

It's strange that you argue with me because everything else is also true, the British Empire is dead and died in large part because of its refusal to accept Germany's status as an equal power on the continent.

>>17844701
>I argued
You haven't argued anything retard, you stated something. To argue something you need to put forward examples, proof, and explanations as to your reasoning. Stating "X is true, deal with it" is not arguing

>>17844721
It seems you are incapable of rational discussion, it would be a pleasant surprise if you went to the massive pedophile thread at the top of the board and tried to shut down discussion there as you so avidly do here, it doesn't surprise me that you won't.

>>17844701
>most members of the war cabinet and various people in the general staff were opposed to continuing the war
>they all voted to continue the war
Again why lie about something so well known? Is it a humiliation fetish or something?

>>17844724
Name the cabinet members who voted for peace or kill yourself.

>>17844732
Halifax was the primary will, and many more especially in especially the army knew the UK was done as an independent fighting force in Europe after Dunkirk. None of them voted against it per-say but the will was there. Halifax de-facto resigned during this period and got an assignment in DC because of this.

>>17844728
I never claimed anything about votes, I simply said there were strong desires for peace among the General Staff and War Cabinet, had a man like Churchill not been in charge the UK very likely would have left the war.

>>17844724
Here, this might help
>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/argue
>argue verb (GIVE REASONS)
>to give the reasons for your opinion, idea, belief, etc.:
Point to where you made your argument and I will gladly respond

>>17844741
>Halifax
That's one out of 20

>>17844741
>the will was there
>they didn't exercise this will at any point
Kill yourself you stupid cunt.

>>17844745
Why did Halifax, and many others at varying positions in the military, wish to leave the war, and what small changes to history would be necessary in order for the UK to peace out after or during Dunkirk up until Barbarossa? I think simply Churchill not being there would have been sufficient, maybe even less was needed however?

>>17844753
An incredibly influential one out of a group of 20 at that, he would have been prime minister if he didn't turn the position down.

>>17844762
Yes that is political maneuvering, I have no idea why this makes you so irrationally angry.

>>17844773
Political maneuvering to... keep the war they oppose going? Buy a razor blade and run a hot bath cunt.

>>17844769
>Why did Halifax and many others at varying positions in the military
They no doubt had their reasons as all men do, but this is a different arguement alltogether, it has nothing to do with overall support within the cabinet.
>An incredibly influential one out of a group of 20
the last I checked 19 is a bigger number than 1, even if that one is worth 3, 4 or 5.
>he would have been prime minister if he didn't turn the position down.
British Prime ministers do not control their cabinets in the same way American presidents do, Halifax would have been forced to follow the majority opinion, or he would be forced out.

>>17844797
I don't think they reasonably expected that they wouldn't be hanging from the gallows either way, so yes they tabled the issue in light of it not being something which was politically feasible under the current PM. That doesn't mean it wasn't the correct choice or that they did not want it.

>>17844799
I know Prime Ministers do not control their cabinets or the houses in the way that presidents do, but certainly I think if Halifax was PM the war would have ended.

I've noticed that basically all criticism of Churchill from the right (naturally the left hates him for his anti-communist, pro-empire, anti-Indian etc. views and policies) belong to the "human history begins in 1939" school and also seem to think Churchill was Prime Minister in September 1939
An honest assessment of his actual career really suggests that he did not want to fight a war to save the USSR from Germany but his hand was forced by Hitler's utter inability to abide by literally any treaty he signed

>>17844810
>they tabled the issue and then voted against it
Down the road cunt.

>>17844816
Nobody thinks he was PM in 1939, everyone knows that he took office in 40.

>>17844818
I'm sorry this makes you so delusional and angry, you very clearly suffer from anger issues of some kind and I certainly hope you don't have any small animals around.

>>17844819
A lot of people in threads like this one blame him primarily for WW2, as if he was the one who made the call to honor Britain's obligations to Poland

>>17844827
Well I mean he was politically active prior to becoming PM, he was a predominant war hawk at that. While they are wrong to say that he was PM during the Danzig crisis he did very much have his hands in the cookie jar on that one, as he did during much of the phoney war, Norway for example ..

>>17844826
>concern trolling
Why aren't you dead yet lying worthless little cunt?

>>17844810
>I think
Yes well there's your problem, the thoughts of some poster /his/ aren't proof or arguements for anything.
I only need point to the recent political chaos in the British conservative party, with the removal of Johnson and Truss to showcase how a PM going against the majority typically destroys careers. If you prefer an example roughly contemporary with WW2, look at Atlee's attempts to continue the wartime coalition post-war (and that was with the agreement of the majority of the Labour leadership!). And these were over causes far less pressing than a world war and German domination of Europe
>>17844819
Oh my sweet summer child

>>17842187 (OP)
He didn't mingle with wrongdoers.

>>17844842
I don't think my position is alien to historical recounting of this time? To my understanding it was pretty widely accepted that the UK very nearly left the war in 1940, it was only because of the popular understanding that appeasement had failed and the political windfall this gave to warhawks like Churchill that the war continued. Really I would argue that had almost anyone else who could of realistically been in the PM actually gotten the spot, the UK would have left, which is part of why other parties insisted on particularly Churchill taking it. Though that is another element entirely.

>>17844840
Genuinely are you feeling alright? It is not normal for people to get this irrationally angry about something which they clearly know very little about.

>>17844870
Little cunt is trying its hand at gaslighting now. You should be in the ground. Noone will miss you.

>>17842466
Good point on Chamberlain. Whilst Hitler would have struggled to seize the Czechoslovakia due to the Sudentland forts, at the end of the day Britain was utterly unprepared for war and had no appetite for it. It also would not have been a justifiable war on a moral basis. At the end of the day, the Sudentland was filled with ethnic Germans who wanted to join the Reich.

However, the fundamental issue I have with the declaration of war against Germany in 1939 is that it effectively permits the Soviet Union to do whatever they want, and weakens all of Europe. Let us take a scenario where all goes according to plan and BRITIAN and France starve out Germany im and defeat them around late 1940-1941… now you’ve got a significantly weakened Germany, Britain and France, and a fully fresh Soviet Union that can swarm the continent, aswell as a fresh USA that can further go against British imperial interests as Britain is weakened

I truly think the better foreign policy decision would be to let Germany and the USSR fight. There is absolutely no guarantee Germany would prevail.

>>17844879
Something about /his/ apparently attracts people at just the complete end of their sanity, I had like a 7 hour slugging match with a delusional pedophile in another thread and now this guy is just seething with rage for no apparent reason. Are you like related to Churchill or something? Is there any reason for this topic to drive you as insane as it has?

>>17844887
Down the road little cunt. Your parents will be relieved.

>>17844870
>To my understanding it was pretty widely accepted that the UK very nearly left the war in 1940
In pop history maybe.
>Really I would argue that had almost anyone else who could of realistically been in the PM actually gotten the spot, the UK would have left
Go on then, argue it.
>which is part of why other parties insisted on particularly Churchill taking it
Fairly irrelevent though given the tories had well over 200 more seats than the next largest party (even when not counting the national Liberals/Labour)

>>17844769
>>17843718

It literally was just Halifax who argued for peace, everyone else was against.
That's why there was no peace on 1940, because Halifax had zero support.

If the majority wanted peace then Churchill would have been forced to comply or be removed. Halifax wasn't trying to convince Churchill to sue for peace, he was trying to convince everyone else, primarily Attlee and Chamberlain since these two had the strongest party support, and both of them wanted to continue the war. Churchills opinion did not really matter at thst poin, and this is something /pol/fags will never grasp, no matter how many times this topic is discussed.

Also
What you're doing is such blatant propaganda, because the way you formulate yourself is that you only namedrop Halifax (because he was the only one) and then use him as a sort of broader spectrum to insinuate that there were many others when in fact, there there virtually none, and Halifax is the only one you can refer to. I dont even know why you're doing it because it's so easily disproven and it gives anons a false understanding of the british 1940 cabin crisis, which has been written on extensively.
Churchill had support from from the cabinet including Greenwood, Attlee, Sinclair, Eden, Chamberlain, Beaverbrooke etc.
The entire labour party supported continuing the war (in fact it was the labour party who insisted on Churchill being PM), the entire cabinet of outer ministers supported continuing the war, the king supported continuing the war, the only real rift was in thr conservative party which basically followed Chamberlain, and Chamberlain gave his support to Churchill which was the moment when Halifax could no longer press his case.

Now again, you can literally only namedrop Halifax but it virtually stops there, the rest is just subversive tactics of distortion the truth with you subjective insinuations. It really is pathetic and it only makes pro-hitler anons look like subversive rats.

>>17844893
I mean he wasn't the only one, plenty of the General staff were opposed to the continuation of the war. The political situation could have been swayed had the attempts for peace been made more salient and to say there wasn't any will or that it was lone in Halifax is also a bit disingenuous.

>>17844892
In part then you argue from futility and ignorance to a lot of the political situation at the time. The UK was pretty much knocked out of the war in Europe after Dunkirk, they wouldn't stop producing last ditch service rifles until well into 1943 and as a fighting force never really recovered, operating almost exclusively with American troops for the rest of the war except for rather large failures or desperate holds like Dieppe and Burma and most of the African campaign until Torch.

If the will wasn't there before the fall of France, it certainly was after the evacuation.

>>17844891
I've only ever seen this sort of dogged retardation from Brit commies, because you sure don't like engaging with facts.

>>17844672
>the jews™

>>17844915
Right.... and how exactly does any of this prove your claim that "had almost anyone else who could of realistically been in the PM actually gotten the spot, the UK would have left"
Throwing random shit at the wall doesn't make a good arguement if anyone is actually following the conversation

>>17844904
No it really was just Halifax, which is why this is the third time you specifically refer to Halifax because you got no one else yet you use Halifax to construct a false premise that there were more, when infact there weren't. It started with Halifax and it ended with Halifax. Again it's so easy to fact-check this because the 1940 cabinet crisis has been written on extensively so I don't even know why you're trying to sell a bullshit narrative that will immediately collapse if it was tested in a real debate among academics. It really is just subversive tactics.

The bottom line is also that continuing the war had the majority support because if it didn't then Churchills would have been forced to comply or be removed. /pol/fags treat Churchill like he's some sort of larger than life demigod both before and during the war, before he actually became party leader (he was able to more freely maneuver once he became party leader which solidified his support but that was after the cabinet crisis with Halifax).

It should also be stated that Halifax was one of the driving force for declaring war on Germany in 1939, and his case in 1940 was more about initiating mediation rather than outright sue for peace.

I agree that Britain's decision to continue the war in 1940 can be questioned and argued, but it was a joint decisions by the parlament, cabinet, outer ministry, and monarchy. To pin it all on Churchill like he was some sort of dictator (like Hitler) is ridiculous.

>>17844932
I think the losses would have been too much for anyone who wasn't compromised, as Churchill was, to reasonably continue the war. This is objectively the correct view by the way, regardless of what the political situation was at the time, the collapse of the empire after the second world war is not some non-factor in this debate.

>>17844936
I don't have an exact list of everyone, it would take some research to find it, and while it was a collective decision, to say that there was no indecision or dissenting voices is incorrect.

>To pin it all on Churchill

No I don't even think Churchill really knew what he was doing, I think he was a name and a face that got to where he was by being useful to his benefactors and not really meaningful beyond that.

his unquenchable thirst for aryan blood

>>17844915
>you sure don't like engaging with facts
>>17844953
>I don't have an exact list of everyone
I was wrong, a razor would be too kind. You should use a rope instead. Find a stool and wiggle until you fall. Again you will not be missed and your parents will be happy for the first time in years.

>>17844946
>I think
Again - what some poster thinks on /his/ isn't evidence of anything. Got any proof that the losses were too much for the cabinet members? Did Kingsley Wood write in his diary about how the deaths were driving him mad? Did Chatfield complain to Churchill about how too many homes were being destroyed
>This is objectively the correct view by the way
Regardless whether it is or isnt (it isn't but I'm not going to argue the point since I am determined to ignore your attempts to derail this conversation you little sneak) is irrevelent. The important factor is the opinions of the people at play, and what they want to do in the situation

>>17844959
Ernst Junger says the exact same thing and he's a based example of trad redpilled warrior aryan elite.

>>17844953
>it would take some research to find it
Boo hoo, imagine having to know about something before arguing about it
So you admit you don't know?

>>17844953
>I don't have an exact list of everyone, it would take some research to find it, and while it was a collective decision, to say that there was no indecision or dissenting voices is incorrect

Ok so you basically admit that your whole point was bullshit.
In your >>17843718 post you said "The War Cabinet", meaning both attlee and Chamberlain abd fucking Eden and Greenwood etc all of these men wanted to continue the war. So you're outright lying and now your doing some pilpul billshit to maintain the facade of your faltering subversive tactics that only sells to anons who are half-informed because otherwise your narrative collapses. You Aldo admit now that your argument is entirely constructed around Halifax and you virtually got no one else.

They say jews are subversive and lying but I really think nazifags are worse, you are a perfect example. You literally hurt your cause more than you help, that's the most insane part about your little scheme.

>>17844973
Of course he doesn't know, he's a lying little stormfaggot weasel who is trying to get a "Acktuallly it was all Churchills fault, he was a warmonger who, as Emperor of the UK, forced the Allies declare war" thread going. Again. Hence why he needs to string himself up at the first opportunity.

>>17844966
I'm sorry your empire died m8, I'm sorry you live in what basically amounts to a third world country and you have to refill your hot water after every 5 minute shower. It doesn't need to be everyone else's problem though.

>>17844968
>>17844973
Political capital being put aside, generals like Ironside and Wilson were perhaps a bit pessimistic on war aims if not outright favoring the Italian option, I can produce a more exhaustive list but it will take some time and we both know they existed.

>>17845001
Note how it's not attempted to deny that it lied through its fucking teeth and thinks everyone is so stupid and would just swallow it?

>>17845001
>generals like Ironside and Wilson
Not members of the Cabinet. Next
>we both know they existed.
We both know the opposite.

>>17844984
Again I am working on the exhaustive list of Generals, if my memory serves me correct, both Wilson and Ironside were in favor of an Italian settlement or very pessimistic about the war respectively. Just because it takes time to go through my sources and actually refresh my memory doesn't mean you can just declare victory, this isn't some rhetorical hall, to my understanding it's an actual historical discussion.

>>17844972
his attitude is a bit different from Churchill's "YEAH KILLEM"

>>17845011
Halifax was the most prominent figure who desired peace in the war cabinet and would maintain this position, but he did have allies, the political capital was just insufficient to swing them when it came time to vote. The generals have always factored into my debate, largely because they were the only people seeing clearly what war would mean for the empire.

>>17845015
Note how the slippery little cunt has gone from "most members of the cabinet" to "generals" as though we wouldn't notice?

>>17845009
>>17844988

Dude you sound like you are going to cry, I have seriously never seen someone get this furious this quickly unless they had other issues. Did ya bird fly off or something wanka?

>>17845024
I mentioned the generals as early as this post >>17844701

>>17845030
Dude you sound like you're gonna die. You should do that. Rope is cheap and your parents will be so relieved when you're gone.

>>17842195
It.

>>17845035
At the same time you mentioned the war cabinet which you have been utterly BTFO on and revealed to be a lying cunt who knows nothing but thought could lie it's way through the thread like it's not a massively well known event. Kill yourself cunt.

>>17845023
>Halifax was the most prominent figure
Good argumenters do not go around in circles.
>but he did have allies
Name them
>The generals have always factored into my debate
My debate? A debate is between two or more people, maybe it is important in your head, but the fact remains it is irrelevent to an arguement concerning the cabinet and potential PMs.

>>17845015
It was the fact that you proclaimed that the war cabinet as a whole wanted peace, and that Churchill simply kept going against everyone else's wishes. Do you realize how fucking retarded this is? As if they were all being held hostage to continue the war...
You outright lied, because Greenwood, Eden and Attlee were strong supporters of continuing the war, and Chamberlain ultimately did so too, and all of these men were in the war cabinet, yet in your >>17843718 post you broadly said the war cabinet was against the war.

Your fucking subversive tactics failed as soon as someone with a tiny bit of actual knowledge called you out and now you got nothing to move on. My question is why are you even doing this, trying to sell a complete lie to anyone who might read your bullshit and think that you're right. To be having a false premise that immediately collapses as soon as it's tested I'm a real debate. What exactly did you achieve? The anon is just going to look like a complete moron.

Again, it's quite disgusting how blatantly obvious your subversive tactics are. Like you have zero shame because you're too ideologically invested to be truthful. Only ww2 can do this to a history debate.

>>17845044
I mean Halifax was not alone in his sentiments, though the later debate would sway his allies, the war cabinet didn't really have a unifying will for a bit because of the persistent state of crisis they were in during Churchill's early days as PM.

>>17845038
I hate to say this mate, but I think if your first line of thought and favored insult is "kys" then it's more a case of projection from you.

>>17845061
Then name who else was with Halifax cunt. Where the fuck do you think you are?

>>17845050
>Name them

Well Chamberlain for one, there were more and more importantly it wasn't until late may that Halifax backed off his calls for peace and Chamberlain towed the line.

>>17845056
I said there were prominent elements of the War Cabinet which were desirous of peace. I think Churchill being compromised is what caused him to push so hard for war even despite the fact that he knew just how perilous the situation was at that time.

>>17845061
>6th time I namedrop Halifax in order to insinuate that there were more when really there wasn't.

>also, I completely backpeddle from my original argument which was that the majority wanted peace.

>Because nazis like myself rely on subversive tactics and then pipul arguments, but I will totally accuse the jews of doing this.

>>17845072
Gonna start kicking and screaming again, or are you going to read the thread lmao. Better get cracking, I hear your assisted suicide appointment with what remains of the NHS is only 6 months away.

>>17845081
And all the rest of the cabinet, were they also "compromised" you hysterical little cunt?

>>17845091
>nowhere in the thread had he mentioned any other name than Halifax
You are too stupid for gaslighting just like you're too stupid to get into this attempt at a debate which is why you're floundering and should hang yourself.

>>17845088
I am refreshing my memory on a topic which I haven't looked into in quite some time, you have latched on to single words and accused me of being overtly rhetorical and dishonest almost immediately. I understand this is an emotional topic for many people with less than stellar social intelligence like>>17845072, but immediately assuming I exist at the heights of dishonesty and subversiveness when my language and view has been quite clear from my first post is a bit dense no?

>>17845081
Nope you literally said the war cabinet and the "general staff" (whatever the fuck that means) wanted peace, and you insinuated that a large part of the parlament did too.
How many times do you want me to quote your >>17843718 post?
Your just adding and changing virtually everything you once said because you have completely abandoned trying to defend the argument.

>>17845094
I have no idea, did they get loans that saved them from default as is the case with Churchill? I think it matters little whether or not they were, as both the media and certain relevant politicians were at the time.

>>17845110
>rolling into AKTUALLY IT WAS ALL CHURCHILL HE STARTED THE WAR BECAUSE HE WAS COMPROMISED!!!! thread number 836,446
>reciting every single talking point that's been disproved in every other thread
>can't name names despite multiple requests

We assume youvexist at the heights of dishonesty and subversiveness because you do and it's painfully obvious little cunt.

>>17845111
Elements of both the general staff (think OKW or OKH for a relevant comparison) and the war cabinet were seemingly pretty anti-war. In fact some of them were vociferously so, such as the case with Halifax.

>>17845117
>I have no idea
>it matters little
Pathetic little cunt

>>17845081
Halifax was forced to drop his case when Chamberlain wanted to continue the war.

The way you phrase it is that it happened in the opposite order of events lol.

>>17845122
>seemingly
>some
You are so fucking shit at this.

>>17845126
Yes Halifax backing off occurred after Chamberlain towed this line, that is a pretty understandable error though, I am re-immersing myself in a complicated historical subject.

>>17845132
You're making shit up as you go along to try to save face after being caught lying already. Seriously consider suicide.

>>17845118
Ok I think I'm done with you because you're just going to dance around your own distortions of the arguments that you previously said with confidence.

My respect for Hitler-apologists has once again hit fucking rock bottom. Well done.

>>17845127
>>17845124

Alright man I'm gonna stop responding to you because you clearly lack the ability to have a sane and rational discussion on these matters, maybe log off for a bit and take a breather, I don't think this is good for your blood pressure.

>>17845081
>Well Chamberlain for one
No actually
>Chamberlain now supported Churchill by stating that there could be no question of concessions being made to Italy while the war continued. Any concessions which might ever be necessary must be part of a general settlement with Germany, not with Italy. He doubted in any case if Mussolini wanted to come into the war yet and, as Greenwood had argued, Hitler might not want him to declare war at all. Halifax stuck to his guns and said that Britain might get better terms before France capitulated than later in the year after Britain's aircraft factories had been bombed.[102]
>As the war cabinet adjourned, it was now clear that Halifax was in a minority of one given the view expressed by Chamberlain about the alternative to fighting on.[107] Nevertheless, Halifax still held a powerful position within the Conservative party, even without Chamberlain's support

>>17845139
>>17845140
Awwww you triggered? Sensitive little bitch as well as a liar.

>>17845141
Chamberlain was against the Italian option but there were other peace plans, it was an animus of several competing wills where there were genuine desires for peace. The excellent and efficient propaganda machines the Brits had built meant that much of the population was largely ignorant of the state of the war until the decision to maintain a war-like posture had already been made at the higher levels. I think if the people had reasonably known what those in high command and the war cabinet knew, they would have wished for peace too, but Churchill used their ignorance to lend his mandate for war credibility and then they were in it for the long haul.

>>17845139
>My respect for Hitler-apologists has once again hit fucking rock bottom. Well done.
What was it at before?

And just like that the #9865 thread on how Churchill was responsible for ww2 has been concluded.

Stay tuned for thread #9866 on how Churchill was responsible for ww2 with the exact same copy-paste arguments next week.

>>17845160
Turns out telling the lying little cunt to kill itself works wonders.

>>17845187
I think you have problems mate

>>17845198
Notice how there's no denial?

>>17844922
Yes, those guys.

This is a fascinating thread

>>17845160
The same copes as usual.

>>17845056
>You outright lied, because Greenwood, Eden and Attlee were strong supporters of continuing the war, and Chamberlain ultimately did so too, and all of these men were in the war cabinet, yet in your >>17843718 post you broadly said the war cabinet was against the war.
>Your fucking subversive tactics failed as soon as someone with a tiny bit of actual knowledge called you out and now you got nothing to move on. My question is why are you even doing this, trying to sell a complete lie to anyone who might read your bullshit and think that you're right. To be having a false premise that immediately collapses as soon as it's tested I'm a real debate. What exactly did you achieve? The anon is just going to look like a complete moron.
All of these people were shuffled into their positions prior to the war to foment conflict with Germany.
Your entire argument collapses when you look at British politics from 1920 to 1945 and you dont begin the story in 1939.

Your post is a lot of projection.
Hitler was right, the British were then as they are now, lobbied by foreign groups to act against their own interests.
Britain today no longer exists, their most influential political figure holds no official position, and they have, outside of majority brown london, the lowest HDI of any Northern European country.

None of the farsighted English actually wanted war and those who did want war were either stupid or dishonest.

We can tell because of how England's leadership never once stopped betraying its own people.

If England's actions were justified, Germany wouldnt be wealthier, Whiter, and Stronger than England today.

>>17844984
>muh nazis
The National Socialists were right, England's leadership betrayed its people, a trend continuing to this day.
Hitler was right.
The Nazis were right.
The Germans were right.
England was being dragged into a war against their own interests by jewish financiers.

All of your posts in these threads always amount to you trying to say there is reasonable doubt.

Look man, everyone knows it, its an open secret, its like the Royal Family and Epstein, sure you can make extensive pseudo-rational cases against what our eyes see, but youve already lost, everyone knows it, everyone sees it, it was the jews who forced England into war, just like its the jews today who use Tony Blair to replacement Whites in the UK.

>>17845139
>>17845152
>>17845118
If Hitler was wrong and the Nazis were wrong, and the chuds were wrong, why is England brown?

This alone proves them all correct.

You are being replaced, Whites are being replaced.
Hitler and the Nazis and the chuds ARE RIGHT.
This isnt up for debate.

>>17847164
>>17847172
Why haven't you ACKed yourself yet cunt?

>>17847179
England was a 99.9% white ethnostate prior to September 1939 and would have remained so had there not been a war.

>>17847179
I used to argue with stormfags that England losing war wouldn't magically make it white. That's basically what you do - create false causations and prophesize that if A had happened than B wouldn't have happened without actually rationalising it, just pure wishful thinking

>>17847180
How many British girls have been raped since this thread began?
>>17847189
>England was an ethnostate before they declared a suicidal war on Germany
Yes and?
>>17847198
It’s not false, the mechanism of action causing England to experience White replacement is an elite beholden to foreign interests betraying their own people, this is a direct result of England’s inability to counter this in the lead up and during WWII.
If England lost the war and National Socialism prevailed Europe would be a White Continent on a White planet.
There is no argument against this. White replacement is not possible without jewish dominion over Whites facilitated by the English betrayal of Europe and themselves.

>>17847215
>If England lost the war and National Socialism prevailed Europe would be a White Continent on a White planet
Like I said, no rationalisation, no explanation, no arguing - just puff and the whole Europe magically turns white. This isn't serious

>>17847215
>England (not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland though) declared war for no reason
Hang yourself cunt.

>>17847222
>no rationalisation, no explanation, no arguin
I literally just told you the mechanism of action, which you ignored because youre an illiterate Poolack who doesnt actually care about White people.
>magically turns White
was it not White before?
How about the people who were actively making it non-Whites, jews and corrupt Angolems arent running Europe?
We remove the people causing White replacement, and White replacement does not occur, agree?
The Template of DeNazification isnt developed and trained on Germans then exported out into the broader White world? Does that explain how Europe would retain its sovereignty and White identity?
The specific socio-political mechanism which replaces Whites isnt developed or imposed onto Whites. This would prevent White replacement as we know it.
>>17847324
How many Britons were injured by literally anything Germany did until Britain declared war?

>>17842435
>>17842488
>history is just a series of unconnected random events and seeping national spirits like in HOI4 or my Marxist fantasy
>so stop noticing specific (((Names))) of history
L O L
You are obsessed with /pol/ and you think everything to do with Hitler or racism is /pol/.
People just like Hitler
People are naturally racist
You lost the cutlure war a decade ago.
Let it go.

Lets discuss the facts.
Churchill played a pivotal role in discrediting the peace movement, he had a ton of money poured into him from outside interests.

Have any of you ever explained WHY Churchill was bailed out by henry strakosh a man he had never before met?

>>17847408
>Germ sympathiser is confused and baffled at the idea of sticking to your agreements
Hang. Yourself. Slow. Cunt.

>>17847425
Post full body heilpic then. Seeing as people like Hitler.

>>17842666
>end of wars of annexation
>America and the UK proceed to fight in and support wars of annexation literally during WWII and immediately after WWII
L O O O O O O O L
You literally made that up "wars of annexation", shut the fuck up.
What was the arab-israeli war America supported? What was the israeli-Egyptian war Britain supported?
What was the Vietnam war America literally fought in? The Korean war America literally fought in?
What about the Falklands war a very recent conflict in which Britain asserted its claims over land it literally had no historical claim to?
or is imperialism good because Argies were run by pseudo-fascists?
I think you're going to condone it because you are a bunkertroon who thinks theyre doing agit-ops by supporting opposition against the heckin fascies.


You dont actually care about wars of annexation, you're a deluded thirdie who will say and do anything that furthers the anti-White agenda.

>>17843631
except they did, we dont have any record of the British wanting war in 1934 when Churchill began saying war with Germany was necessary.

>>17843686
>>17843694
If they wanted to the continue the war, whyd they end it in 1945 and not continue it on against the Soviets?
Or was there specific lobby against Germany by the jewish lobby?
The soviets also invaded countries guaranteed by the British.

>>17847432
>you have popular support? Well turn yourself into the police, the people will save you
L O L
>>17847428
>sticking to your agreements
What agreements? Poland lost more land than Germany and was occupied by a foreign power.
Britian told the Poles theyd guarantee their independence then told Poland to stand down when the Red Army invaded LOOOOOOOOOL
Britian was in the wrong, youre jewish, everyone knows it.
Thats why you defend the indefensible.

If you're not pro-White, you arent allowed to talk about White history and what Whites should and should not do.
get the fuck out of this thread, this isnt reddit.

>>17847408
>I literally just told you the mechanism of action
You did not.
>We remove the people causing White replacement
Who "we"?
>The Template of DeNazification isnt developed
Why?
>exported out into the broader White world
>How?
>The specific socio-political mechanism which replaces Whites isnt developed
Why?

All of your "arguments" are based on a wishful thinking that everyone would have bowed down to Hitler and no one would have resisted, which is so laughably childish that I don't even know if it's worth arguing with

>>17847449
>we dont have any record of the British wanting war in 1934
>1934
>no Rhineland remilitarisation
>no Austria Anschluss
>no Sudetenland crisis
>no Czech annexation
>no ultimatum to Poland
Colour me shocked

>>17847464
>you did not
Nope. I did. Let me tell you again, a corrupt elite betraying their own people. This is the mechanism of action by which jews are inflicting White genocide.
DeNazification is a specific socio-political mechanism by which jews are inflicting White genocide, this wouldnt be possible without the compliance of corrupt leadership.
>who’s we
White gentiles.
If you don’t feel apart of that well ok that explains why you are arguing against self determination for White gentiles.
>why
How would de-nazification be developed if the National Socialists had won?
the Nazis are going to DeNazify themselves?
Without denazifications existence it can not be exported, this is self evident.
>wishful thinking
Actually my central point is The mechanisms of White genocide, such as leadership beholden to the jewish lobby and denazification being removed/impossible due to the reasons I have stated, would then not exist or be unable to be imposed upon Europeans.
This logically follows then Europeans would be on the receiving end of a global genocide.
>bowed down to Hitler
What about just not declaring war on Hitler?

See here’s the problem with your thinking. “Your guys” won, and now Whites are being genocided. This is obviously a problem and it’s on (You) to prove that Hitler would have genocided the Germans, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Scandinavians, because Hitler’s defeat is what directly lead to their genocide.

>>17847473
>the British became murderous over
>Germans in Germany
>German speakers voting to join a German speaking country (twice)
>Bohemia not being annexed at all and choosing to become a Reichsprotectorate
>Germany throwing Polish invaders out of a German city then asking for a peace treaty the day of (which Britain declined on Poland’s behalf before Britain even entered the war)
British leadership was shamelessly corrupt and warmongering.
None of these constitute a legitimate excuse for war.
If Britain wants a war, wait until Britain is invaded.
>that’s not le real politik
Well Germany waited for Danzig to be invaded before striking out against Poland.
Germany waited. Why couldn’t Britain, because Britain wanted the war because jewish lobbyists like samuel untermeyer and henry strakosh paid and coerced the British leadership to take a hardline anti-German stance.

>>17847478
>What about just not declaring war on Hitler?
All your logic stems from the principle "if you're not against Hitler you're with him". So here's a simple question: if Great Britain had never declared war on Germany, if Hitler had never conquered it, where the fuck would National Socialism and antisemitic sentiment have even appeared on the Isles from? From nowhere

>>17847463
No heilpic? Curious...

>>17847491
When was Danzig invaded lying little cunt?

>>17847496
Actually my logic stems from don’t needlessly declare war on other Europeans lol.
>where would anti semitism appear on the isles from
This is you admitting Hitler was right and it is jewish influence that sank the British isles.
Where does anti semitism come from? jewish behaviors. As long as a pro-European country has power, there will always be a viable alternative to jewish tyrants. The jews were kicked out of England before they will be kicked out of England again.
These desert people don’t belong in England. They belong on a reservation overseen by Whites because Whites are an actual chosen race with mercy and clemency in their hearts.

jewish behavior would produce anti semitism in Britain. That’s how it gets there.

Furthermore, if Britain becomes a jewish country and Germany remains national socialist, this is a better outcome than what we have now where every country becomes jewish run.

>>17847508
>the Hitler lover suddenly doesn't like the idea of going to war with other Europeans
Hang yourself.

>>17847500
Post your face and name, then I’ll post an unironic heilpic.
>>17847505
In 1939 when Poland shoved 200-500 men into Danzig possibly more. That’s why a huge fucking battle took place on the Westerplatte and at the Post Office where the Poles were stockpiling machine guns, grenades, and anti tank guns.

>>17847508
>This is you admitting Hitler was right
No, stop deflecting
>jewish behavior would produce anti semitism in Britain
Then it should have done so. And yet there wasn't any antisemitism. Neither after Hitler, nor before

>>17847511
Don’t invade Germany and Germany won’t invade you.
But I like how you claim Hitler is anti European when Hitler was the one trying to stop napalm being dropped on White people.
England (and America) was the one dropping napalm on White people at the behest of the jews.

>>17847514
I asked first. You're the one claiming everyone loves you and supports your cause. Why weasel out now? Oh yeah, the lying cunt thing.

200-500 men occupied the entire city? Wow, Poles must be supermen!

>>17847518
Don't invade countries guaranteed by the UK and the UK won't declare war on you. How many white people were having napalm dropped on them in August 1939?

>>17847518
>Hitler was the one trying to stop napalm being dropped on White people
Tell that to the citizens of Guernica. Or Warsaw. Or Rotterdam

>>17847517
Yes, it is.
It’s not a deflection, you’ll see I literally answered your question in the next line.
That’s called a preface btw. Not sure if they covered that in Intro to Angliskie.
>then it should have done so
What do you mean? It takes time.
>if anti semitism doesn’t happen right now then it can never happen
Well if Hitler was an anti semite then why didn’t he kick out the jews in 1933? Huh? Guess he wasn’t anti semitic.
>wasn’t any anti semitism
There was and still is today.
In fact the peele commission was anti semitic
Lawrence of Arabia was anti semitic
Many British officers were anti semitic
This is actually something jews today claim. The jews literally say Britain was anti semitism incarnate because they were restraining the jews from mass migrating to Palestine and exterminating the Palestinians.

But we both know you don’t know that because you don’t actually know anything, you only say the opposite of what I say which is why you say there was no anti semitism when Britain literally had an anti semitic commission investigating jewish crimes against humanity.
The Peele Commission was in 1936
The British officer resignations were in 1944 and 1946.
British public opinion became very antisemitic in 1948 and then Britain even supported Egypt against Israel (before supporting Israel against Egypt).

Now you’re going to use this to say “see Britain was le based and not jewish run” you’re going to do a complete 180 with this information. But you’ve already been discredited, you’re an ignorant liar who will say literally anything to oppose me.

Note how the little cunt still hasn't provided the names of the cabinet who wanted peace (but voted against it)?

>>17847519
Why would I allow you to dox me? Like why do you think that would be a good idea from my perspective?
>the Polish invasion isn’t an invasion because there weren’t enough polish soldiers to garrison the entire city
LOL
>>17847522
Poland invaded a country guaranteed by the UK (Danzig).
The USSR invaded a country guaranteed by the UK (and got away with it LOL)
But are you saying Britain is justified in dropping napalm on White people because Germany defended a German city from a Polish invasion?
You’re anti German
You’re anti White
>>17847526
I have told it to the citizens of Geurnica a frontline city, Warsaw a frontline city, and Rotterdam a frontline city (which the Germans called off their air attack on).
They all said dropping Napalm on White people to burn them alive is a crime against humanity and inexcusable.

>>17847542
>It takes time
Literally "two more weeks". This isn't serious

>>17847546
Notice how she’s too afraid to even reply to me. MOGGED

>>17847551
Why would being doxed in this situation harm you seeing as everyone loves Hitler and backs your cause?
>Danzig
>a country
>a German city
You really do lie like you breathe.

>>17847553
I literally gave three instances of anti semitism in Britain before, during, and post war.
What else do you want?
What would be serious to you?
Is the Peele Commission not serious?
Is the immigration hold on the Mandate not serious? Is the support for the Arabs from 1944-1948 not serious?

>>17847560
Of course it's not serious. Because at the end of the day Britain went to war with Germany at behest of, as either you or one of your buddies claim, Jews

>>17847559
Because jews do not love Hitler and the jewish mafia is a power group which through coercion and corruption engages in life ruination against enemies real and perceived.
Why would I allow this?
>Danzig isn’t a German speaking country
>Danzig was never apart of Germany
>Danzig’s people weren’t born literally in the German Empire

Why the dishonesty?
Danzig, even if ripped away from Germany unjustly, was still a country guaranteed by Germany (and the UK btw) and Germany was fully justified in putting an end to the polish invasion of this German city.

>>17847565
>countries are either 100% jewish or 100% free
Really? There’s no middle ground where different factions within a country can engage each other in political struggle?
All countries, England especially, with its parliamentary system is entirely lockstep.
That is absurd, you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

Also you did say there was no antisemitism at all, now you’ve shifted the goalposts to saying “well it wasn’t serious anti semitism”.

You lost.

>>17847566
How can your life be ruined if everyone loves Hitler and they know you love Hitler as well, if not more so? Wouldn't your life be improved? You'll be a hero!

>Danzig isn’t a German speaking country
Correct.

>>17842187 (OP)
Why did he antagonize Hitler?

Jealousy. Hitler was rooted in the Volk. Churchill grew up as an aristocrat. Churchill was never loved the way Hitler was.

>>17847569
>Really? There’s no middle ground where different factions within a country can engage each other in political struggle?
I'm not the other anon, but come on - you can't be serious. There is no democracy in the modern world. What you're describing is political theater. The parties that are actually against the status quo are ALWAYS promptly removed on some bogus charges

>>17847584
>the Jews control everything
Wow, sounds like some sort of master race!

>>17847592
Is a parasite superior to humans because it can kill humans?

>>17847599
Yes

>>17847569
>well it wasn’t serious anti semitism
Post one pogrom that happened in Great Britain in the 20th century. You can't. The Brits have always loved the Jew

>>17847599
The strong rule, the weak do what they must.

>>17847608
post one pogrom that happened in Germany in 1933. Cant do it huh? Guess Germany wasnt anti semitic.

>>17847601
>>17847613
So you have no problem with Us overthrowing the jews and masscreing them?

>>17848099
>in 1933
Wait 5 more years, lol
>>17848101
>masscreing
Sure, as soon as you learn English

>>17847571
I just explained to you the jewish mafia will destroy the life of anyone who is remotely pro-Hitler.
>correct
But Danzig IS a German speaking country.
It is a country, it speaks German. How is this not a German speaking country?

>>17848107
concession accepted.

Whyd the jews leave the thread?

As a Pole I am truly thankful to him for saving the world from genocidal Germanic supremacism and Generalplan Ost. He was right about the Soviet Union. It’s a shame that FDR was a crypto Communist who gave Stalin everything he asked for.

>>17849800
The thread was concluded a long time ago.

>>17847445
All I'm going to say is Britain has more of a claim to the Falklands than Argentina. The entire controversy over it was manufactured by a failing regime, and people ran with it because I guess they wanted to believe.

>>17848111
How can your life be destroyed if everyone loves Hitler? "Hey guys anon loves Hitler, here he is heiling! Get him!" "Huh, but we love Hitler as well, good for him!"
>Danzig
>a country
Hang yourself stupid cunt.

>>17848101
You're too much of a pussy to post a heilpic on an anonymous Danish basket weaving chain letter, you aren't "masscreing" anyone.

>>17849888
If everyone hates Epstein why won’t they release the files?
>Danzig wasn’t a country
In section 11 of the Treaty of Versailles Danzig was made a sovereign independent nation under the protection the League and Poland.
>>17849894
So you would approve of the Americans overthrowing the jews and holocausting them? You approve of the holocaust yes?
I mean you said so, when are you posting your face?
I have my heilpic ready to go but my condition has always been whoever asks must first post their face.

>>17849834
>half of Poland doesn’t have toilets
>>17849867
Where specifically because the objections raised to Churchill went totally unanswered.
>>17849874
>all I’m going to say
There it is LOL I got her on this one.
Imperialism is ok when it’s being done to “fascists”.

>>17849986
You're holocausting nothing pussy, you're too spineless to post a heilpic while saying everyone will love you for posting a heilpic.

>Danzig
>a country
Looooooooooooooooool

>>17849990
>tripling down on the Danzig question
Not the hill to die on. Danzig was defined as a sovereign independent nation.
Please post a refutation of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations charter. Article 11 is where Danzig is covered.

I have already posted a heilpic before but to post it again you’re going to have to post your face.

Furthermore, you haven’t answered, do you or do you not approve of Americans overthrowing organized jewry?
Yes or no?