Churchill Still Stands Alone

[TheWastelander]

Hitler was fighting for Christendom

:tard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_euthanasia_and_the_Catholic_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf#The_Nazi_persecution_of_the_Christian_Churches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landeskirche#List_of_Landeskirchen_in_1922_with_changes_until_1945

I didn't say Germany was a perfect representative for Christendom. It was a futile attempt at salvaging the remnants of an already lost civilization. In hindsight it is clear as day it was over before it started. What's interesting to me is looking through Hitler's eyes and wondering how the hell he thought he had a ghost of a chance.

There are two possible explanations:

1. It was reasonable at the time to believe the rest of the world hadn't been as corrupted as Weimar. Instead it was obvious the rest of the world had already been completely bought (in hindsight).

2. Even Hitler knew the world had been completely bought but was a pawn to hold the final nail in Christendom's coffin. This seems unlikely as I think he was, in essence, a man of good will.

Wastelander, you're an American fundamentalist Christian. Usually that means one is a Christian Zionist. I can respect that, but your opinion is clouded by the fact that a Christian Zionist believes Israel is a positive fulfillment of prophecy.

I am not a Christian Zionist. Unsaved Jews who reject Christ are going to hell, same as every other unsaved person. They are not God's chosen people as they were in the Old Testament.

I believe it is a Christian's duty to spread the gospel to them in order to try to save them from that fate.

I by no means support everything the state of Israel does just because a large portion of American neoconservative Evangelicals do.

I do not consider myself an "Evangelical."

Care to assume anything more about me?

 

[rudebwoy]

Is this the same Churchill who ordered the carpet bombing of Dresden, after the war was over.

 

[TigerMandingo]

Poor Neville Chamberlain.

Few people in history have been so unfairly vilified.

Good analysis. Also, the character named Neville in the Harry Potter series is portrayed as a weak, submissive pussy. I wonder if that's a (albeit unfair) reference to Chamberlain? It would make sense given how the series is supposed to be an analogy of WW2 (with Voldemort being Hitler).

 

[Saweeep]

Is this the same Churchill who ordered the carpet bombing of Dresden, after the war was over.

What law is it in that book we all love...the one about crushing your enemy?

 

[Engineer]

Is this the same Churchill who ordered the carpet bombing of Dresden, after the war was over.

What law is it in that book we all love...the one about crushing your enemy?

It's what's best in life, along with seeing them driven before you and hearing the lamentation of their women.

 

[Bushido]

A people finally win what they've been fighting for since Christ.

Yes, in the simplest of terms, Jews beat Christians at WW2.

"By way of deception thou shalt do war."

How did a thread about one of the greatest ever Brits turn into this?

:facepalm3:

 

[WD-40]

The victors got their own country, Israel, and their own ethnic sovereignty

I scarcely think that European Jewry can be described as a victor of WWII. The best you can say is that the population that remained owed its continuing existence to the fact that Nazi Germany ran out of time to exterminate them.

Moreover, the Israeli state was not a direct outcome of Allied victory in WWII, so much as the fact that in 1948, in the days after establishing their state, the Israelis successfully fought for their survival against invading Arab armies.

 

[WD-40]

2. Even Hitler knew the world had been completely bought but was a pawn to hold the final nail in Christendom's coffin. This seems unlikely as I think he was, in essence, a man of good will.

He just got a little carried away, right?

I'm sure the minor misunderstandings would have sorted themselves out and everything would have been juuuust fine in the end, if only he had been allowed to fully implement Generalplan Ost...

 

[Bushido]

Hitler: "I'm not racist. I have plenty of Jewish friends!"

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

This seems unlikely as I think he [Hitler] was, in essence, a man of good will.

[img=270x370]http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/dd/f3/0e/ddf30e63ab6dfd4651d5e7ca7b894960.jpg[/img]

I hear Pol Pot was a pretty cheerful guy too.

 

[Krusyos]

I did Nazi this thread coming.

 

[Quintus Curtius]

This thread is timely for me. I'm just finishing up listening to Max Hastings's 20 CD biography of Churchill during WWII. It's entitled "Churchill's War: 1940-1945". Highly recommended.

 

[sixsix]

While it is heresy to say anything even slightly positive about Hitler or Nazi Germany, this thread does make you think.

So many topics we discuss on this forum, the rise of feminism, immigration politics, how beta Western men have become, are related to this: the broken spirit of the white race.

And then specifically the men, because the women follow whatever. It's been pointed out repeatedly in Japanese men, how they transformed from proud warriors into asexual herbs. This was a result from the same war.

Looking at the West, the same is visible. Europeans conquered the world through superiority. But our societies have been successfully infected with a cultural virus that has rendered us impotent. There's no standard of good and evil, beauty and truth. Whatever the urgency of cultural threats like Islam, we are unable and more importantly unwilling to defend ourselves.

Was Hitler a cunt? Most definitely. But what do we have in its place? The communists were 'defeated' with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but they have infiltrated and successfully taken control of virtually all our institutions. Education, the media, politics.

Education doesn't teach facts anymore, it openly focuses on political ('social') activism. Freedom of speech has been taken away in all but name. The media combined with our current understanding of human psychology is the most effective propaganda tool in human history. In politics, we have big corporations buying our politicians while people are distracted with easy outrage. Black versus white, men versus women, oh my good terrorism-and-ebola. At the same time, hundreds of billions are channeled to private people via bank bailouts and war expenses.

But we won the war...

Edit: I still think Churchill himself was dope. His take:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

 

[Slim Shady]

Churchill was a cunt. He was a bigger dick to many parts of the world than Hitler ever was. Victors write history books. Hitler was probably a cunt too but he's blamed for a lot of shit that was indeed the fault of the Brits, Americans, Russians, and Jews. I'm not even bloody christian or white or w/e. This is fact.

Now, am I just plain fascinated by Hitler? Yes. Maybe in a similar way to how I am fascinated by Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange perhaps.

Regardless I think it is worth looking at atleast some of this very very long movie.

 

[Sawyer]

Just released from a three day suspension for Stormfront-syle comments. I did go over the top. I do not want to be seen as a Stormfront type nor do I want this forum to become like Stormfront. It's difficult to maintain an arm's-length detachment when making an unpopular argument.

So let me preface this by saying that absolutely nothing in this comment will help you get girls, money, fame, happiness or improve your life in any way. Whatever your cultural, ethnic or religious bias is I respect it. What I'm trying to do is make an argument about military history, and the most phenomenal military victory of the last two thousand years. In which a people's historical enemy were convinced to destroy each other on the battlefield and the victors took their world. And I congratulate the victors and I sympathize with the crushed. But let's see it for what it is.

Why do we discuss this in the Churchill thread? Because how do we appreciate Churchill honestly unless we appreciate what he won?

Again I reiterate, without condemnation or spite, that the Jewish people won the greatest military victory of the last 2000 years in WW2. They crushed the civilizations that expelled them, marginalized them and otherwise treated them as second class citizens.

They have sentenced the defeated to that which they themselves for so long suffered: to wandering, to feeling marginalized and to being deconstructed. And look, fair is fair. But please let us call it for what it is.

The winners:

The losers:

The real victors of WW2, when seen from the eyes of the defeated looking out from the now long gone Old World, were the indomitable and indefatigable Jewish people in a rout that would even make Sun Tzu blush. Hitler, Roosevelt, and Churchill all lost, insofar as their people's interests were aligned with ancient traditions. But only Hitler fought honestly for them, however wrong they were, and however much he abused them to make them fit his time.

This is the light in which I believe Churchill should be seen. Certainly a good light for many, not a good light for others.

Please take this comment in the spirit it was intended, which was not a spirit of malice, but a spirit of free inquiry.

 

[Chaos]

Damn, the truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[TheWastelander]

What is ironic is that WWII ruined England. They went to war over Poland and by the end of it Poland was solidly in the hands of Stalin. They traded one threat for a much worse, much more insidious one.

Afterwards they gave up their colonies and turned their back on civilied countries like Rhodesia, handing the communists victory after victory because of their own weakness and probable infiltration.

They should never have gone to war with Germany and the US should've never gotten directly involved in the European theater. Hitler, for that matter, made a very foolish mistake when he declared war on the United States.

Buchanan wrote a good article on Poland, Churchill, etc. You can read it here: http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-betrayal-of-poland-1939-1945-363

Britain had gone to war and lost 400,000 men and an empire for Poland’s independence. Yet, as Poland receded into the darkness, not once did Churchill vent upon Stalin the oratory he used so often on Hitler. The rape of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was the moral cause that precipitated the war. Yet, Churchill and FDR, to appease Stalin, meekly acquiesced in the betrayal of that moral cause.

“Of one thing I am sure,” FDR said at Yalta, “Stalin is not an imperialist.” How explain his naivete about Stalin, to whom he gave everything, including a third of the Italian fleet and recognition of his puppet government in Poland? “Puerility,” writes George F. Kennan. FDR once told his friend, ambassador William Bullitt: “I think if I give him (Stalin) everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.”

 

[Saweeep]

To be fair, we were struggling to keep the empire afloat financially long before WW2.

WW1 is what really ruined Britain.

Those two wars robbed us of too many good men. Too many good genes.

 

[Feisbook Control]

Peter Hitchens has often spoken and written on why he thinks WW2 was a colossal mistake for the UK. Here is an example.

I agree that it was absurd that the UK guaranteed Poland's freedom knowing full well that it could not have backed that up even if it had wanted to. I also agree that it was absurd that Roosevelt and Churchill gave not only Poland, but all of Eastern Europe, as well as a large piece of Germany, to Stalin. What, exactly, was the point of WW2 then?

It is well known that Hitler saw war with the Soviet Union as an inevitability and that he did not want to fight in the West. It didn't make any sense based upon his ideology of lebensraum.

A far smarter policy would have been for the UK and France to build up their own forces. They should have let Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union tear one another apart, and then mopped up the victor. In my opinion, WW2 was a much more stupid strategic mistake than WW1, and Churchill is largely responsible for that due to his tunnel-vision, massive ego and general war mongering. WW2 was a huge Pyrrhic victory that never need have happened to begin with.

Also, yes, Churchill also screwed up in a big way at Gallipoli. You'd think people would have got wise to him back then.

Although he said some witty things about women or Muslims, I can't get behind the hero worship. The first half of the 20th century was a time of massive egos far beyond their owners' intellectual capabilities, and we're still paying the price for that today.

 

[Lemmo]

What is ironic is that WWII ruined England. They went to war over Poland and by the end of it Poland was solidly in the hands of Stalin. They traded one threat for a much worse, much more insidious one.

Afterwards they gave up their colonies and turned their back on civilied countries like Rhodesia, handing the communists victory after victory because of their own weakness and probable infiltration.

They should never have gone to war with Germany and the US should've never gotten directly involved in the European theater. Hitler, for that matter, made a very foolish mistake when he declared war on the United States.

Buchanan wrote a good article on Poland, Churchill, etc. You can read it here: http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-betrayal-of-poland-1939-1945-363

Britain had gone to war and lost 400,000 men and an empire for Poland’s independence. Yet, as Poland receded into the darkness, not once did Churchill vent upon Stalin the oratory he used so often on Hitler. The rape of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was the moral cause that precipitated the war. Yet, Churchill and FDR, to appease Stalin, meekly acquiesced in the betrayal of that moral cause.

“Of one thing I am sure,” FDR said at Yalta, “Stalin is not an imperialist.” How explain his naivete about Stalin, to whom he gave everything, including a third of the Italian fleet and recognition of his puppet government in Poland? “Puerility,” writes George F. Kennan. FDR once told his friend, ambassador William Bullitt: “I think if I give him (Stalin) everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.”

Buchanan develops these ideas much more fully in his book The Unnecessary War.