Thread 17954005

Why did he decide to throw away a hundred years of European surpremacy and start killing his fellow whites by the millions?

>>17954005 (OP)
He envied the masculine power of Slavic Bolshevism

>>17954011
trve

>>17954005 (OP)
>killing his fellow whites by the millions
Jews don't identify as white.

>>17954005 (OP)
But enough about Churchill!

>>17954005 (OP)
Living Space or something.

>>17954065
Churchill wasn't a dictator. Hitler was.

>>17954039
>no non-jewish died during WWII
>>17954065
>muh 6 gorilion bengalis

shitskin board

He was a BBC gooner and secretly believed in black supremacy.

>>17954039
And neither do Slavs apparently.

It's very simple. He didn't see the people he was persecuting as white.

>>17954109
>>17954114
Here's a picture of Paris under German occupation, what do you notice?

1/2

>>17954530
picrel German occupied Paris.

>>17954533
>>17954530
Here's a picture of Allied "liberation" of Paris.

Who destroyed Europe again?

That's right the only leader constantly committing major war crimes en masse: Churchill and his "strategic bombing" (terror campaigns) that he promised Roosevelt he wouldn't do.

He destroyed the French navy, then France itself, then all of continental Europe, and proceeded to fucking speedrun the death of the British Empire and European supremacy on the world stage in less than 6 years.

>>17954542
>he promised Roosevelt he wouldn't do.
Are you making shit up? Brits bombed krauts at day and Americans at night
It was a good thing because the nazis got spanked so hard that they didn't started another war for over 80 years, we owe the European peace to Churchill

>>17954542
Another dishonesty in your post comes from the fact that the French Resistance did 90% of the fighting. Once a larger American squad arrived, the Germans surrendered the city

>>17954545
>At the start of World War II in 1939, following an appeal by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the then neutral United States, the major European powers, including Britain and Germany, agreed not to bomb civilian targets outside combat zones: Britain agreeing provided that the other powers also refrained (see the policy on strategic bombing at the start of the World War II).

Why do you bother posting under a namefag? Your knowledge of history is zero and you just do pure agenda posting. At least your agenda and lack of historical knowledge and obvious bias would be hidden if you were Anonymous.

>>17954576
>Britain agreeing provided that the other powers also refrained
So it was pretty much useless already on 1 September since Germans broke it
Also don't talk about history when you are just a neonazi larper fanatic preaching his religion

>>17954574
Partisan activity is an evil warcrime and had little effect other than cowardly men putting innocent lives in danger by firing ununiformed from underneath the skirts of women and children.

The Germans withdrew from Paris for strategic reasons to avoid a salient.

>>17954580
Germany only retaliated against London after Churchill broke it by bombing the Ruhr (thousands of km away from the front). Strategic bombing aka terror bombings were a war crime. Tactical bombing of fortified cities is not a warcrime (this is the only thing Germany did before British broke international law they agree was bombing military targets in cities near the front lines).

Btw after Churchill order the bombing of the Ruhr he FLED to the countryside WITHOUT warning Londoner's about what he just did. He intentionally wanted civilians to die in the Blitz so that he could stoke up resentment, Most of the public only found Brits bombed first decades after the war.


I'm French btw, you dumbfuck tankie LARPer. My ancestors fought UNIFORMED and honourably against Germany in the war. I blame Churchill for destroying Europe as do many noble historians including the BRITISH historian who dug up all the cowardly acts by Churchill. We don't blame him because of ideology, we blame him because he did -in fact- destroy Europe.

Anyway there's no point to replying to closed minded double digit IQs like you.

>>17954589
>>17954589
Germans bombed Wielun on 1 september so it's game over

OH and also
>>17954542
Germans literaly bombed Paris (for pretty much no reason at this point) after it got liberated and Gaytler wanted to use V2 rockets too
So there is ANOTHER manipulation from our sneaky little /pol/tard

>>17954005 (OP)
Because Hitler worshipped Satan

>>17954530
Why are you even quoting me?

I said Churchill wasn't a dictator but Hitler was.
Ergo Churchill couldn't solely take action in whatever way he chooses, but Hitler could.

>>17954634
Churchill made unilateral decisions to bomb the French navy and to start the strategic bombing campaign that destroyed Europe. The only thing those around him could prevent was changing the name "terror bombings" in his memo to strategic and morale bombings.

Both men were democratically elected so I don't see the "dictator" narrative holding any water considering Churchill's vast emergency powers made him virtually a dictator too, coupled with heavy propaganda misleading his own people on his actions.

That being said it's irrelevant to the fact that Churchill destroyed Europe. These are objective facts that can be observed from simply looking at primary source materials like pictures.

>>17954658
>The only thing those around him could prevent
Nope. And again,
Churchill was not a dictator.
Hitler was.

If the cabinet and parlament did not like the way Churchill conducted the war, they could easily get rid of him. In fact Churchill narrowly survived a vote of no confidence in 1942, which is why he wasso desperate for a victory at El-alamein and then made pompous speeches about it.

Everyone knew Britain had bombed the French fleet and was bombing German cities. The media in Britain wasn't controlled by the state like it was,in Germany.

>Both men were democratically elected so I don't see the "dictator" narrative holding any water
It means that Hitler never had to answer to anyone for what he did or wanted to do, nor could any parlament or cabinet get rid of him unless he was literally coup'ed.
Chamberlain literally had to win a vote in the parlament to declare war on Germany. Hitler never bothered.

>Churchill's vast emergency powers made him virtually a dictator too
What emergency power? Churchill could only stay in office for as long as conservative and labour supported it.

>coupled with heavy propaganda misleading his own people on his actions.
Unlike Germany, British media was not dictated by the state.

>That being said it's irrelevant to the fact that Churchill destroyed Europe.
How is it irrelevant? Churchill cannot do anything without approval. It's a pretty major point against your bullshit.
Hitler could do whatever he wanted. The only threat to his position was the army because the only way he could be stopped was if he was literally gunned down and his government overthrown by force.
Hitler bears the full responsibility fir his action, while churchills actions was aligned with the will of the parlament.

>>17954658
>Both men were democratically
FALSE
gaytler was not elected as a leader, he lost and then he was made a chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg, fagtler used this position to stand above the law and kill or imprison anyone who disagree with him
So, is your knowledge of history zero or are you simply acting sneaky in order to preach your nazi religion?

>>17954716
People really believe for a second that the British media (which is OWNED by the state) isn't controlled by the state?

Lmfao. I mean, maybe if you believe that the BBC is controlled by Jews or whatever nonsense, but if not the British media is absolutely controlled by the state and actively working against the interest of the British public.

Britain has had the most intensive propaganda machine in human history ever since the Napoleonic era and the people have never had a respite from it.

>How is it irrelevant? Churchill cannot do anything without approval.
Ok so Churchill destroyed Europe (and the British empire) "with the approval of parliament and the British public".

With that amendment, the first clause of the statement that "Churchill destroyed Europe" is still accurate therefore your post is still irrelevant.

>>17954733
Did the state own the Daily Express?

>>17954733
>Churchill destroyed Europe
that's just your retarde fantasy doe

>>17954735
You do know he will just tell you that everything he doesn't like was owned by da joos

>>17954542
Hitler wanted to destroy Paris and ordered it to be destroyed but the guy he tasked with doing it disobeyed the order

>>17954733
>With that amendment, the first clause of the statement that "Churchill destroyed Europe" is still accurate therefore your post is still irrelevan

Nope it's still relevant.
Because Churchill wasn't a dictator.
Hitler was.
The consequences of Hitlers actions rests solely on Hitler.
The consequences of Churchills actions is extended to the entire British state, especially since Churchill depended on support from the opposition to remain the PM of Britain while Chamberlain was still alive.

>>17954741
He also order to bomb the city day after, killing over 200 civilians
I gues this doesn't count as destroying Europe

>>17954735
Whether through control or incompetence they all towed the official propaganda narratives without question. That the British public was fooled into a war against their own interest is an objective fact that was captured Nicholas Pringle's survey of British WW2 veterans, you can find the gist of the book's quotes here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4W61ZKj4I4

This is the only survey of its kind and the veterans overwhelmingly regret the consequences of their participation in WW2.

Given all the fact post hoc, virtually no British soldier would've fought in WW2. Therefore we can only conclude that they were victims of state propaganda. Propaganda which you are continuing to spout in this very thread despite all evidence to the contrary.

The British propaganda machine continues to demonize and lie to this very day even while the reasons for those lies are no longer relevant to its current crisis at all. Even the simple raising of the English flag is associated with Nazism now in the crazy minds of these victims of two centuries' worth of propoganda.

>>17954736
That Churchill destroyed Europe is another objective fact that can be verified with primary source material like the photographs I posted above.

>>17954769
How did Churchill mindcontrol French resistance into liberating their city and Hitler into bombing Paris?

>>17954741
Do you have a primary source receipt from that like an order from Hitler?

No you don't.

French historians don't really believe von Choltitz' version of events, only Anglo narratives believe that:

https://www.thelocal.fr/20140825/nazi-general-didnt-save-paris-expert


>>17954747
>Nope it's still relevant.
>Because Churchill wasn't a dictator.
>Hitler was.
>The consequences of Hitlers actions rests solely on Hitler.
>The consequences of Churchills actions is extended to the entire British state, especially since Churchill depended on support from the opposition to remain the PM of Britain while Chamberlain was still alive.

Ok I agree to all of this. Now what?

Churchill and "the entire British state" destroyed Europe.

Do you want more amendments?

>>17954769
>post the video of Sam Wilkes aka youtube let'splayer larping as historian
so this is where you historical illiteracy comes from

>>17954773
Are you really so fucking retarded that you believe French partisans blew up their own city?

Those were British bombs you idiot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II

Germans aren't innocent, but Churchill* destroyed Europe, not Hitler.


* and "the entire British state"

>>17954785
So hitler ordered a 1000 year old german city of Aachen to be defended till nothing left but he left Paris?

>>17954793
>Uprising causes destruction??
why are you so braindead

>>17954792
Does Sam Wilkes still shills his neonazi party ruled by a open homosexual on twitter?

>>17954769
>Whether through control or incompetence they all towed the official propaganda narratives without question.
They are still not state controlled.
They could largely write and publish whatever they saw fit.
This is a stark contrast to Germany where German media rdcirved directives from Göbbels and other journalists where put in concentration camps.

>That the British public was fooled into a war against their own interest is an objective fact
Hmm who do I trust? Countless of professional historians or a random neet autistic on 4chan with his cherrypicked anecdote.

>Zoomer Historian
Now I see where you got your facts on Churchill being a dictator who ruled with absolute power and destroyed Europe.

>Given all the fact post hoc, virtually no British soldier would've fought in WW2.
Likewise with German soldiers, tho thrir regret would probably have been far more imminent.

>Therefore we can only conclude that they were victims of state propaganda.
Except zoomer historians entire shtick is to connect ww2 with 2025, none which are related, while simultaneously claiming that his videos are not politically motivated and tells his audience "not to overthrow it" at the start of every video.

>Propaganda which you are continuing to spout in this very thread despite all evidence to the contrary.
I wonder I'd you would be capable of discussing history as it happened when it happened to the people at the time as it was happening, without turning to into a 2025 political debate.

>Even the simple raising of the English flag is associated with Nazism now in the crazy minds of these victims of two centuries' worth of propoganda.
Completely irrelevant to the question whether Churchill could go out of his way to do things that the parlament and cabinet wouldn't approve.

Am I supposed to discuss the motivatiins and conduct of the Seven Years War based on the state of Europe during the 1848 liberal revolutionary waves that occurred some 80 years later?

>>17954792
Nicholas Pringle's book is primary source material with respect to the opinions of British veterans:

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Warriors-Nicholas-Pringle/dp/1291129332

I posted the first video I could find because I know you people don't have the patience for reading.

As probably the only one ITT who actually studied history at a university level and obtained a doctorate, I can promise you that primary testimonies are considered more authoritative than the second hand writings of any historian, never-mind biased writers who literally confessed to lying to promote themselves.

>>17954769
>Zoomer Historian

Lol. Lmao even

>>17954801
Hm multiple spelling errors. I apologize. Not used to post on a phone.

>>17954769
Our resident neonazi larper's idol and source of historical facts is Sam Wilkes (FAS Chav who had to pay a prostitue from Romania to marry him)
I'm not suprised

>>17954796
The narrative was that he wanted to blow up Paris with explosives and then run away, now we're back at "defending".

Yes, he probably ordered von Choltitz to defend the city and von Choltitz tried to spin his disorderly retreat in a way that would put himself in a good light.

That's quite obviously what happened and anyone with two braincels would come to that conclusion.

>>17954798
>Bomb damage clearly dropped from the sky!? Wow I didn't know bullet holes from shitty small arm fire could be so destructive!
Yes, sure, the partisans actually ran away, got into British uniforms, piloted strategic bombers, then dropped bombs on top of their city.

Brilliant point Anon. Why didn't we all think about that? Oh right, because we don't all jack off to fictional video games all day long.

>>17954818
did Zoomer Historian told you that?

>>17954803
brush your teeth dude

>>17954818
>Yes, he probably ordered von Choltitz to defend the city and von Choltitz tried to spin his disorderly retreat in a way that would put himself in a good light.

He ordered Paris destroyed because it couldn't be defended by its meager garrison (whom was overwhelmed by Fench resistance) you moron.

Hitler simultaneously ordered Königsberg to be defended to the last brick. The entire city was destroyed as a consequence. If the city was to fall to the enemy then it was better destroyed.

You mean to tell me he spared Paris but not Königsberg?

He should have been killed many times during the war but wasn't. This changes people. For the better in the military's eyes because they made him intelligence

>>17954801
>They are still not state controlled.
Irrelevant to the central point. Propaganda is propaganda. Misleading the public is misleading the public.

>Hmm who do I trust?
The direct words of your own fucking veterans who actually fought the war?

>Now I see where you got your facts on Churchill being a dictator who ruled with absolute power and destroyed Europe.
Actually I first accepted these facts from David Irving's books, but who cares, propagandists like you are incapable of arguing facts. Look at how you immediately jump to names because all you can do is ad hom and denigration of all those who don't tow your party line. You completely skip over facts like photos and testimonials and jump to attacking people you don't like.

>Likewise with German soldiers,
Receipts? Biographies of German footsoldiers say otherwise, they did believe they were fighting for their own interests.

>connect ww2 with 2025
They are absolutely related. Because the entire core of British WW2 propaganda required (besides lies surrounding WW1 and demonization of Germans in particular (but not Austrians! And never Italians!)) in a "moral argument" for the war which was deeply contrary to the self-interests of the British people.

Again, the point is not that Germans fought for anyone's interests besides themselves (they mostly did, and mostly in a way that emulates what the Imperial great powers fought for before). The point is the British had no interest in fighting WW2 (and neither did my people for that matter) except for this vague idea that having interests is deeply wrong.

This immediately led to the collapse of the British Empire because if it's "wrong" for Germans then it's wrong for British people to have interests too. This same mindvirus led to you importing millions of rape gangs while denigrating your own people.

All these lies and propaganda that you are upholding have a cost, and those costs have compounded and are now being felt.

>>17954831
Ok so you were drawing a false equivalence before with Aachen.

Why are all your posts so fundamentally dishonest?

>>17954835
Sam take care of your wife children instead of shitposting on /his/

>>17954829
I dont hate his face but I hate his fucking voice. He speaks through his nose. How the fuck can people listen to hours of that shit.
And you can hear his current expression through his narration, there is this insufferable smugness in his voice.

The fact that he names his videos "the comple history of ..." which is such blatant propaganda as well because it insinuate that this is all the information, that its neutral, and that nothing needs to be added. Also his opening line "This video is purely a work of history, don't overthink it", lol no real historian would ever tell someone not to use critical thinking.

>>17954801
>Completely irrelevant to the question whether Churchill could go out of his way to do things that the parlament and cabinet wouldn't approve.
Yes, which in itself is completely irrelevant to the fact that Churchill destroyed Europe so why do you keep tugging on that line?

>Am I supposed to discuss the motivatiins and conduct of the Seven Years War based on the state of Europe during the 1848 liberal revolutionary waves that occurred some 80 years later?
Do you think historical events are isolated kernels that don't change societies and culture? Why bother studying history at all then? History has no effect on anything in your view.

Ridiculous take.


>>17954817
You're a pedo tankie posting anime girls. I don't think you want to take sides here because your presence a detriment to the other Anon.

Calling everyone a Nazi doesn't do you any favours either. I am not. But it does serve to paint you as a clearly biased political poster with no interest in history.

>>17954533
>>17954542
Nazoids lost

>>17954840
I don't even know who this kid is, but I think it's funny that he appears to live rent free in your heads.

I assume you guys are of the resentful type who could never get faculty or otherwise find professional employment in history?

>>17954848
fucking delete this

>>17954834
He had that sixth sense you get when you get so lucky at not dying you can sense it coming

>>17954849
Take a deep breath dude, you are getting worked too hard over preaching on what you saw on some youtube letsplayer retard pretending to be a historian

>>17954834
God protected him in order to cleanse Europe from the Jews and give Christians one last chance to repent from their crimes of tolerating sodomites in their presence.

>>17954854
Which university did you finnish, Sam?

>>17954859
I never called him a historian and I don't consider him to be one, but considering he has over 200k views on that video while you're here shilling your tankie pennygrift to 2 Anonymous posters I think it's pretty clear you're the only one coping and seething here.

Maybe if you post that fag like 10 more times you would would get Putin elected as president of Alaska or whatever.

>>17954872
Yeah yeah he is a big boy with 200k views, calm down and relax

>>17954878
Me and the one other Anon ITT are convinced by your communist Anime girls, you have succesfully defeated and insulted some britfaggot. Anything else? Or do you need more attention? I can show your posts to my cat if that would help you.

In any case considering you've all spent 20+ posts coping while not denying any of the facts I posted I will accept your full and complete concession that Churchill AND "the entire British state" destroyed Europe while Hitler merely occupied like any European power has done every decade or so for the last millennia.

We can all close the thread now, me knowing I won the central debate, poleGOD knowing he won one over on some YouTuber kid and the Anonymous Churchill defender Britguy knowing he can sleep soundly to the sound of Pakis raping his sister. We all got what we wanted in the end.

>>17954887
Are you dumb? She has Russian Federation flag on her, I told you to stop seething and take a deep breath

>>17954580
>>17954596
Wielun was a frontline village of less than 1000 people defended by Polish troops.
It was hit by close air support single engine aircraft.
This is not comparable to quad engine heavy bombers dropping napalm onto Europe's oldest most densely population cities thousands of miles from the frontline.

>>17954835
>Irrelevant to the central point. Propaganda is propaganda. Misleading the public is misleading the public.
Still not state controlled media.
Do you understand?
And propaganda doesn't necessaily mean it's inaccurate by default. That's not what propaganda means.

Ultimately, the British media CHOSE to write what it published.
In contrast, the German media recieved directive on what to write, and authorization on its publications.
German journalists were put in concentration camps otherwise. Britain did no such thing.

>The direct words of your own fucking veterans who actually fought the war?
Except it should involve archieves and diaries from 1939-1945, which are the years of relevance whether the war had public support or not.
It's like concluding that nobody supported the Afghanistan or Iraq invasion in 2001/2003 because of how one veteran say he feels about it today, while reflecting on and the state of America now and how he feels his sacrifice was for nothing. It doesn't actually tells us anything about the mood of the country, it's members of congress, the public opinion or its soldiers as they were going through the time as it was happening there and then.

Again, Zoomer Historians entire shtick is to connect ww2 to 2025 to weaponize it as a political club for his own bias, similar to how many leftists does it.
A real historian does not abuse history for their own purposes.

>Actually I first accepted these facts from David Irving's books, but who cares, propagandists like you are incapable of arguing facts.
Zoomer historian basically just plagiarizing Irving, so you might as well just say that. All he does it repackaging what Irving wrote in the 1970s and presents it as newsflash, like some secret lore that has been uncovered, despite the fact that Irving's arguments were heavily debated among academics in the 1970s and found to be bullshit.

>>17954634
>>17954716
Hitler was also not a dictator and even if you define him as one, he wasnt using dictatorial powers.
Churchill had shut down the free press, did not consult with any opposition, did not consult with his cabinet for basically any military decisions, and made a ton of hard power decrees regarding England's strategic moves.
>Media in Britain wasnt controlled by the State
Except it was, Churchill himself said it was in 1944 during the Moyne investigation and
Why even lie about this?
>Hitler never had to answer to anyone
neither did Churchill.
>b-b-but they could have tried to remove him
could they? He was a terrible war-time leader and they ousted him as soon as politically possible.
What does this say about his administration?
You did know this right? They had to force Winnie out in 1945, you were aware they had to FORCED HIM OUT literally two months after the war ended.
That sounds like a dictator who was only removed because the geopolitical circumstances turned against them.
The war which had been used to justify their executive excesses had ended.

We see the same thing today with Netanyahu.

>>17954747
>the consequences of Hitler's actions rest solely on Hitler
Why? Hitler wasnt a dictator, he was an elected official, furthermore you're making your case worse by saying England's government as a collective is responsible for physically dropping the bombs onto Europe.

>>17954903
Well once you understand an event enough you can draw modern parallels to any point in history

>>17954792
>>17954829
>>17954855
>>17954871
>buckbroken this hard by live action tin tin

>>17954901
Context?

>>17954903
>Ultimately, the British media CHOSE to write what it published.
nope and this hasnt been true since WWI and we know it wasnt true because of statements by former State agents tasked with directing media.
just outright lies by figures like Trevor Roper who literally fabricated historical publications on behalf of MI5.

>>17954835
>Receipts? Biographies of German footsoldiers say otherwise, they did believe they were fighting for their own interests.
Hmm who do I trust? Countless of historians who tells me that German soldiers felt increasingly disheartened over the war when they came face-to-face with state atrocities, and being sent against increasingly overwhelming odds by their state.
Or some neet autistic on 4chan.

>They are absolutely related.
Nope.
And its like discussing the motivations and conduct of the Seven Years War based on the state of Europe during the 1848 liberal revolutionary waves that occurred some 80 years later.
Its retarded, hence why you don't do it.
The only reason you try to connect ww2 to 2025 is purely for political bias.

>in a "moral argument" for the war which was deeply contrary to the self-interests of the British people.
This is just you seething that the media and reddit abuses ww2 as a political club, while your intentions are to do virtually the same thing.
This, while both if you calls it objective truth.

>Again, the point is not that Germans fought for anyone's interests besides themselves
Patriotism guided most soldiers from most states. Few soldiers from any state, neither Germany nor USA nor USSR nor Jaosn fully grasped the whole picture of what was actually going on.

>The point is the British had no interest in fighting WW2
Literally not the point you were making, but I can see where you're trying to steer the discussion, despite the fact that this whole debate was on whether Churchill was an equal dictator to Hitler, which he wasn't.

>(and neither did my people for that matter)
Pretty sure most Americwn GIs servers in ww2 with pride.

>This immediately led to the collapse of the British Empire
Not immediate.
And it's highly debatable whether Britain staying out if ww2 would have prevented de-colonialism. This is just some connection you've made because it serves your narrative.

>>17954939
>Countless of historians
Are they historians like Trevor Roper who destroyed his reputation by fabricating claims on behalf of MI5?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Trevor-Roper
maybe you shouldnt trust "Historians".
>autistic neet on 4trans
They are less likely to lie all things considered.
>WWII isnt foundational to 2025
Whats the most common political comparison in 2025? Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, National Socialism or Communism.
What set the stage DIRECTYL for the axes today?
The Cold War, the West is at odds with Russia today, which has lead to a hot war, because of the Cold War, the Cold War was a direct result of WWII.
When people oppose White genocide they are called Nazis.
I suspect you are among the people who call them that despite their best efforts to divorce 14 from 88, it was convenient for (You) to slander them as Nazis, now when Nazis are more favorable and there is a legitimate rally around European identity and a re-evaluation of history, a cracking of the orthodox narrative, and everyone can see the jews, the democracies, were true villains of the conflict you are quick to say "erm its all unrelated it has nothing to do with White genocide today being carried out in Western democracies run by jews".

You are conducting damage control.

The Germans knew the whole picture, thats why they made accurate predictions about the fall of the USSR and White genocide at the hands of organized jewry.
The Germans knew the score, the British obviously didnt and the few privy to the game at all were shamelessly corrupt.
>steering the discussion
You are afraid of that anon because I, me, myself, drove you out of the last thread. You are afraid its going to go in the same direction following the British interest line of reasoning.
>Americans served in WWII with pride
and in 1944 they said world jewry was a bigger threat to America than Germany.
They said theyd rather lose the war after storming Normandy than end segregation.

>>17954918
>Hitler was also not a dictator
Yes he was.
Stop trying to pretend like we're stupid.

>and even if you define him as one, he wasnt using dictatorial powers.
Yes he did. He couldn't be removed from power by legal means and he could make any decision without having to answer for it.

>Churchill had shut down the free press, did not consult with any opposition, did not consult with his cabinet for basically any military decisions, and made a ton of hard power decrees regarding England's strategic moves.
He never shut down the press.
And the press reported extensively on Britain's conduct of the war. As it was put of Churchills control to stop them from doing so.
Churchill may not have been required to consult hus actions first before executing them, but he would have to answer for them if the cabinet and parlament disapproved of these actions as they were unfolding, or if their following consequence, if which Churchill indeed could be removed from office if his actions were found unsatisfactory. An important part which you seemingly skipped in your little rant.

>neither did Churchill.
Then explain the vote of no confidence which Churchill was subjected to in 1942 by the British parlament, and how it parallels to Hitler.
Or the cabinet crisis in 1940 when key members of his cabinet openly tried to persuade other cabinet members to have Churchill removed while being in the same room with the man, and how it parallels to Hitler.
Or the fact that Churchill was eventually voted out of office, and it was Clement Attlee of the labour party who celebrated the final victory in 1945, and how this parallels to Hitler.

>could they?
Yes they could.

>That sounds like a dictator who was only removed because the geopolitical circumstances turned against them.
You're not a dictator if you are voted out of office.

>>17954939
>decolonialism
here's the problem.
Britain's Empire isnt colonies, it isnt land, thats part of it but Britain's core of Imperial Power was their Naval Dominance, their Treasury, and their industry, Britian gave up all three, hard power, soft power, and the industrial base to generate more, this is what ended the British Empire and those all ended directly as a result of WWII which the BRITISH THEMSELVES SAID WOULD HAPPEN AS EARLY AS 1932!

You didnt even know what the British themselves thought about the conflict.
Its also very odd the British high command is talking about Round 2 with Germany when Hitler is on the verge of defeating the other parties in Germany.
almost like the British command is revealing they have inside information that if Hitler wins Britain will end up fighting a war to remove him.
hmmmmm.....
Sounds vaguely similar to what the jewish lobby does in the United States.

Have you tackled that yet?
Explained to us how this identical phenomena is magically different in England because we can see the same thing in America today with a jewish lobby using their ethnic interests to abuse the open nature of democracy to accomplish their own interests at the expense of the broader national body.

>>17954968
>he was
Prove it.
Prove Hitler wasnt voted into power, ill wait.
>he couldnt be removed from power by legal means
this is not the definition of a dictator.
>without having to answer
This applies to basically every national leader for the duration of their administration.
>shut down the press
why would he shut down state propaganda outlets?
>reported extensively
no it didnt, it wouldnt even publish Hitler's peace terms.
The British people werent allowed to know what they were fighting and dying over.
>he would have to answer for them
yet he never did, Churchill was accountable to no one for the duration of the war and he was out of politics as soon as the war ended.
>Churchill was ousted at the end of the war
exactly, during the war he was untouchable, we see the same with other dictators in jewish run countries today, like israel.
>they could
so why didnt they?
>they just liked him
no no no, they wouldnt have thrown him out in 1945 if they liked him.
Churchill's war time powers made him untouchable.
>youre not a dictator if you are voted out office
wrong.

>>17954963
>They are less likely to lie all things considered.
Except 4chan neet autistic like you will forever be confined to this board with your opinions because as soon as you make any academic publications that are going to be subjected to debate, it's instantly finished because it's all bullshit.

Hence why you and your ilk never make these official publications.

>What set the stage DIRECTYL for the axes today?
>The Cold War, the West is at odds with Russia today, which has lead to a hot war, because of the Cold War, the Cold War was a direct result of WWII.
And you're pretending like time would just have stopped if Germany had 'won' the war.
Hence why you can criticize every turn of event on everyone since 1945, a situation that only existed because Hitler decided on war.

>When people oppose White genocide they are called Nazis
Literally irrelevant to the historical objective discussion on whether Churchill was a dictator equal to Hitler.

>"erm its all unrelated it has nothing to do with White genocide today being carried out in Western democracies run by jews".
Correct.
And you're starting to show your own adoration for nazism.

>The Germans knew the whole picture
I.e Hitler knowingly torpedoed his country into oblivion in 1939 since he (according to you) knew where Germany would end up in 1945.
Had he known then he should have instantly withdrawn his soldiers from Poland and put himself and his whole cabinet on trial.
It would have spared the lives of +30 million Europeans, including 9 million Germans.

>>17954963
>You are afraid of that anon because I, me, myself, drove you out of the last thread. You are afraid its going to go in the same direction following the British interest line of reasoning.
You seem to take pride in the fact that you always start talking about something else, your own preferable topic, other than what we were discussing. In any other forum you would have been banned a long time ago for this very reason.

Also, is this really what you think?
You think I'm running if i don't want to spend several hours on a back-and-forth posting on the exact same topic with the exact same arguments?
The funny thing is, you "win" by sheer autism and the fact that you're a neet. You simply outlast in the discussion and call it a win.

Sure it might be true.
But also know this: it only works because you're chronically online. The moment you stop coming here, no one is going to pick up your torch. Because no one reasons with you. Your method is only based on the persistence from you.

Anyway I'm not going to bother more time here tonight. The debate, the original debate that is, has long now been concluded.

>>17954939
>Countless of historians
Are these literal unapologetic propagandists in the room with us?

Pretend for a day you care about real history, show me the receipts _they_ used.

>>17954963
>maybe you shouldnt trust "Historians".
He'd rather do that than listen to what actual soldiers say.

Some people are literally just made to be cucks that soak up propaganda and never think critically about anything.

>>17954922
don't insult tin tin like that

>>17954005 (OP)
In 1930's geopolitics the "fellow whites" thing didn't exist in ethnic Nationalism too much

>>17954542
Imagine a Nazi RPer crying about a few buildings in Paris being destroyed during the street to street fighting, when Hitler wanted the whole city burned to the ground in a fit of spiteful nerd rage.