So, I've been watching Oliver Stone's 'Untold History of the United States'. I know little about Oliver Stone...

Sensing a lot of hostility toward the Churchill. Love a reason why.

Oh, and not generally a Holla Forumsack. I post this here mostly because I'm smelling it as communist propoganda thanks to you fucks. Two years ago, I'd have just assumed this guy is an idiot. Now I'm starting to see how his omissions are being used to support a generally pro-soviet stance. Every fact omitted from his 'documentary' is a fact that either makes America sympathetic or the Soviets unsympathetic. I wouldn't have picked up on that before.

There's a good amount of evidence that Churchill knew his actions would have serious negative consequences for Britain and Europe in general but simply didn't care to change course as long as he got to be famous and powerful.

You're in for a long ride, user.

Anyone on Holla Forums still defending "W.C. Stinkweed" needs to listen to his University of Zurich speech where he outlines the foundation for the EU.
Churchill was a good friend of EU Count Kalergi and one of the key people in making his plan a reality.

Churchill was a slave of the jews (due to his pathetic vices) who brought about the dismantling of the birthright of his entire nation.

I knew that program wouldn't have a shred of truth. Thanks for warning me OP.
Churchill and Roosevelt are the real evil of WWII, even more so than Stalin and communism itself, because they sold their people to the latter.
A traitor is worse than the enemy.
Polite sage.

Really? Heard nothing about that. Most histories I read suggested that he knew Imperialism was coming to a close and was invested in putting Britain in the best position possible after the war. He was also the one to consistently warn Roosevelt not to trust the Soviets and that they needed to be prepared to contest Eastern European territories against Soviet annexation post war. His voice was generally one about defending Europe from soviet encroachment, but he was constantly ignored.

The idea of a European superbloc when the Soviet Union was rising in power makes a great deal of sense. I don't see his support of such a union when western europe was literally on the soviets doorstep as corrupt. The EU existing after the Soviet Union fell though makes no sense. Couldn't that be a case of him supporting an Anti-Soviet policy that, long after his demise, was perverted into a new Quasi-Soviet bloc?

Hilariously, if you talk to liberals about Churchill, they are extremely quick to point to his intense racism and anti-semitism as to why he was a terrible person. So, you all think he was a Jew puppet and the liberals view him as a racist imperialist.

Maybe he was just a very complicated figure in history?

Fucking, WHY?

You do realize you could have been reading ACTUAL books that are well regarded and sourced on the subject right, you fucking nigger?

Sure you do, faggot.

No one is interested in your teeeeeeeveee review. Fucking Jew slave.

Thread discarded. I'm glad you're not a complete retard but you need to fucking lurk moar.

Turns out it was CIDF who made this thread in the first place.

The end of imperialism was deliberate, not inevitable. It was Churchill's job to ensure America joined both wars.

Churchill wasn't black and white, although you won't get any answers from Holla Forums who have bought hard into an omnipotent anti-German world conspiracy stretching back to 1914. (No one has ever explained to me why Britain apparently feigned moderation at Versailles and allowed Germany to rearm after 30 years only to destroy them again. Yes, there was a heavily Semitic element in the West by the early 20th century but history is not literally all-powerful Jews playing a chessboard).
and are both good posts.

Are you from Ministry of Truth or something?

What are jew doing?

That was your first mistake

Good thread OP but there are a lot of people here who get triggered by different opinions. You know when normies call anyone who disagrees with them trolls? This is the same mentality behind labelling a post that doesn't shit all over Churchill as 'bait' - even though its a completely benign presentation of a differeing opinion in a larger post, instead of one obviously intended to show ignorance for replies.

I don't know why people idolise Germans so much. Like yeah, I mean, they're pretty a neat nation. But they're not the heroes of history. They're not a shining beacon of strength or anything. Their most impressive recent accomplishments are their intellectual contributions to philosophy and art through guys like Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Schelling, Heidegger, and Goethe, Musil, Mann, Junger etc. but I don't think Holla Forums takes that much into consideration when sucking Germany's cock.
It's basically a huge ressentimental victim complex. There's nothing more disgusting than seeing people latch onto their weaknesses and defeats as virtuous. i.e. We lost, so the victors are villains and we are innocent victims.

Churchill, literally the traitor of Europe.

I'm not going to give you history lessons, but you may want to look into why the UK royal family hated him, Rudolf Hess' flight to try to get peace to Europe and the suspicious deaths of the Duke of Kent (prince) and Polish PM Sarkoski.

King Edward VIII had to abdict because he was a nazi

Have you learned nothing from this place?

...

Hess acted against the approval of Hitler and Hitler felt betrayed by him for doing it. Honestly I think Hess had lost his marbles and I don't see why his peace attempt should be taken seriously, though as a person I think he probably shouldn't have received the harsh treatment that he did (mainly on request from the Soviets). But he was not acting on behalf of the state.

If the King supported an enemy government over his own peoples' I would like him to abdict too, regardless of ideology.

Do you know that this marxist kike did in WW1, at the start of WW2 and to Norway and Dresden during the war?
He was a warmongering war criminal under the Rothschilds.
There was a reason why he was disposed right after the war.

US was fighting on a second front against ill equipped but fanatical Japanese. This was the reason why Germany allied Japs.
They also had to dispose off North Africa and Italy to get colonial British troops safely to GB for Normandy.
Germans also had to transfer more and more troops to the Eastern front so the French front was severely weakened due to this.
Allies had obvious logistical problems with the addition of them not being willing to help commies. They wanted for Germany and SU to fight it out so SU couldn't invade the rest of Europe.
SU was building up since WW1 to invade Europe.

Please educate yourself before you make such uniformed statements.

No, he didn't. That was a cover-up because the mission failed. The Idea that Hess should somehow have been deluded enough to try this insanity with no approval from Hitler is absurd, unless you think he was insane, but there are documents and a LOT of anecdotal evidence supporting the theory which is widely accepted among historians.

The British refuse to open their archives still, but the Russians have given out some. If this really was an act of treason, Hitler would have punished those who were likely in on it, he didn't.

The king supported his own people, and he realized that the biggest threat was not Germany, but Soviet.

Kill yourself Crowley

I'm going to quote from a great poster on another forum because it's very apt in history discussions on Holla Forums.
The problem with conceptions of history that see literally nothing but Jew hands pulling every single string is that you are only begging the question. It explains little but raises more questions.
The intensely Semitic element, mostly present in the US and Bolshevik Russia, but also in the UK and France, was not wholly revealed in its fullest and most naked extent until the actual prosecution of WW2, when the traditional white European conception of warfare as a power game was discarded and the (Judaic) approach to warfare as a psychotic means of racial annihilation was adopted. The apex of Jewish influence in WW2 was Nuremberg.
I can buy the idea that British Jews brought the US into the Great War – they had the means and the motive, and the "official" story is very weak. But when you start pushing for Jews (or at least, Jews alone) being responsible for every major event including the outbreak of the war, I can't go along with it. German brinkmanship was not really a Jewish phenomenon – Tirpitz was a normal German and more than any other man in the imperial service he was at task for the alarming Anglo-German arms race. The German foreign office was also notoriously poor at reading the political climate in other countries. The uncanny parallels between Bethmann-Hollweg and von Ribbentrop come to mind.
These tensions stretched as far back as the Franco-Prussian war, over 40 years before WW1 broke out. State and mercantile Jewry exploits those tensions and inflames antagonisms, but they are not the sole political force in the universe. Jews are parasitical by nature.

I once had a poster argue with me that everything we know about people like Plato or Frederick II or Michelangelo or anyone is not to be trusted because Jews had apparently meddled with history enough to completely falsify everything.

I think it comes from a distorted lens due to the fact that we're living in a time in the present where Jewish hands are behind essentially all major political events, where Jews are quite literally responsible for a conspiracy to flood Europe in mud and extinguish its racial embers. Neoconservatism was a totally Jewish movement, for example, a flexing of unabashed muscle from political Jewry in the wake of their complete and total dominance of European civilization in the aftermath of the war. Everyone on Holla Forums has been born, raised and marinated in Judaic culture and absolute Jewish political power. It's hard for many intelligent people to extricate themselves and realize that things weren't always like this. They project the framework they know across the entirety of human history.

Stone is great for kosher conspiracies. Wait 'till you get to the end of the series and hear what his conclusion is.
Hint:All conflict in the past century was caused by the patriarchy and capitalism. Only the matriarchy will guide us out of our follies.

Stone is great for kosher conspiracies. Notice how he conveniently omits the rift which emerged in MENA over the establishment of Israel. By the end of the series it's obvious the whole series acted as a revisionists guide to the past, courtesy of the Frankfurt school.
Hint:All conflict in the past century was caused by the patriarchy and capitalism. Only the matriarchy will guide us out of our follies.

Here's an Easter Egg for you. The series did have content that shown a little too much light on the influence of the Jews in international politics, however apologies had to be made and edits done to not give the appearance of antisemitism. Stone is only half Jewish and not a full member of the tribe, so he can be condemned,shunned, and ostracized for not going along with the narrative (biting the hand that feeds him)

Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone apologized for saying in an interview that the Jewish lobby controls Washington’s foreign policy and that Hitler’s actions should be put “into context.”
Stone in an interview with the Sunday Times also had said that “Jewish domination of the media” has prevented an honest discussion about the Holocaust.
“In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret,” Stone said in a statement released late Monday, the day after his remarks were published in the British newspaper.