I read this book

>that's why non-Brits hate him
yes, because he was an imperialist, racist cunt, just like you said.
if you praise him you deserve nothing but rope.

I love Latin Americans crying about imperialism & colonialism like they all speak Spanish & Portuguese by chance

This, he was a racist lowlife. I'm black and I will never respect people like him

what kind of retarded argument is this?

There's no point judging a man born in the 19th century by 21st century standards.

Slave morality

Not that user, people like him because he was necessary. The PM who preceded him would've likely lost the war or capitulated to Hitler. After the war he was ousted from his position pretty quickly, he was a wartime leader. Luckily we're a democracy and can get rid of people like that. Plus remember pretty much everyone back then was a racist, you can't just disregard everyone from more than 70 years ago, the culture was different (wrong but different)

You're just upset that argentina only produces low IQ blacks that naturally are submissive to real men like Churchill.

You hate imperialists, but your country and probably yourself are the latest in a long line of spunk droplets injected into South America by a conquistador's cock.

You literally hate your own identity and existence too, unless you are a complete hypocrite

imperialism, oppression, exploitation and racism were as wrong in the 19th century as it has always been.
stop using the "it's current year" argument as if it was any good.

You are employing the stupid SJW argument of "somebody who held common views of their time who achieved great things is scum because they held the common views of their time" - that literally applies to 99% of people who ever walked the earth and is illogical.

he wasn't necessary, the USSR won the war, UK did little to nothing.
and I've already addressed the "it was a different time" argument, I've read many people from the 19th century, none of them were racist, that's no excuse.

He was good at fighting wars but he was no politician:
>Got cucked by Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, his vision of post-war Europe was simply ignored even though the brits were fighting from the day one
>Got cucked by his own nation when the war ended
He was indeed charismatic, but he was a loser.

Churchill butchered countless Indians and Palestinians, but they didn't count as human in those times so it's ok. He had to be convinced by his sister not to convert to Islam lel

I'm not my country, and I hate my bourgeois state, and I don't know what makes you assume I'm a direct descendant of a conquistador when it's a known fact that most of our population came from European immigrant waves from the early 20th century.

I'm not talking about who did most dumdum, what I'm saying is that Chamberlain would have gone for appeasement, which Hitler would disregard (like every other deal he made), so we probably would've been invaded

AAAAAAAAAAAGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGH SAVE US CHURCHILL, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DESTROY THE COMMUNISTS NOT JOIN THEM-

Attached: betrayal_cossacks.jpg (931x489, 108K)

what do you have to back up that 99% stat?
if they held disgusting views, they were scum, I don't know what this has to do with SJW

>I've read many people from the 19th century, none of them were racist,

wtf are you reading, cause it ain't history

Attached: bogerface.png (514x352, 32K)

how was Churchill necessary here? you're defending an oppresive, exploiting, imperialist, racist cunt just because "he stood up against Hitler"

At least he united the brits mind.
Did he abandon France?

Attached: 7EAD336E-F569-4243-A7DF-818A9584E621.jpg (640x420, 67K)

Marx, Engels, Luxembourg, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.

With this single post you have systematically demonstrated your abject ignorance of military history

Attached: anglo butcher.jpg (413x600, 68K)

god, I really don't want to believe that there are racial differences in IQ, but then I see posts like this and I just can't help but strongly wonder if it's true.

Attached: 1443041015429.jpg (184x184, 10K)

So being a modern colonial invader is better than being a 17th century one?

Ok Juan

how? had the Nazis actually succeeded in an invasion of Britain they still would've lost.

>gets proper answer
>ad hominem in return
and you imply I'm an idiot?
superb

Ok I will spell it out

>Chamberlain and the government at the time believed in a policy of appeasement. At the time people didn't see Hitler as the monster he turned out to be, and noone wanted to be at war, so they thought they would just let Hitler be aggressive in the hopes that he doesn't set his sights on the UK
>This obviously doesn't work and he invades Poland so we have to declare war (because of defence pacts)
>The 'phony war' starts, where we're technically at war but no real fighting

If it continued being non commital and hoping for the best, Hitler would've become aggressive towards us in the end (as evidenced by his other 'pacts'. We would've also lost because we were weak at the time. Churchill opening other fronts and refusing to concede anything was the best choice for this country in hindsight

how am I an invader? I was born here.
how are my grandparents invaders? the migrated, there was no violence, they took nobody's land.
go be retarded somewhere else.

protip: communist theory isn't history
protip 2: read some actual history
protip 3: it wasn't a proper answer
protip 4: you are an idiot.

so should Stalin's crimes be forgotten and be praised because he defeated the Nazis?
do you see how retarded you sound?

>the basis of the most important political conflict of the 20th century isn't history
>giving an actual answer isn't an actual answer
>more insults without actual arguments
just kill yourself retard.

No, but noone ever says that here, you're just making things up

I visited the museum. It’s a must.

What a retarded post

Churchill's always portrayed as a hero, what the actual fuck are you on about?

War criminal

I'll spell it out for you, since you're a low IQ brainlet. You said "I've read many people from the 19th century, none of them were racist"

This proves you are not well read at all, and really haven't read any history. Simple as that. You're dumb as a rock and uneducated, especially because you pretend that people alive during the height of Social Darwinism weren't "racist" by modern standards.

You're most likely proof that the Social Darwinists were right, however.

based

cringe

Engels & Marx were demonstrably racist.

Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Lafargue had “one-eighth or one-twelfth nigger blood.”

In a letter to Lafargue’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”

Of Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote to Engels:

"It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product"

I think you're unable to see the difference between a great man and a hero. Noone thinks he's a saint, there's no hero worship of anyone in this country. Just like the Chinese still like Mao even though he was despicable, Churchill is responsible in part for this country existing

What Marx & Engels though about Latin America:

“Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”
-Marx

“In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.”
-Engels

>You said "I've read many people from the 19th century, none of them were racist"
which is correct, as I pointed out I did read many people from the 19th century, and none of them were racist.
>This proves you are not well read at all, and really haven't read any history.
reading proves I'm not well read at all? great point you've got there.
>You're dumb as a rock and uneducated, especially because you pretend that people alive during the height of Social Darwinism weren't "racist" by modern standards.
literally never said that, I said that I read many people from the 19th century, and they weren't racist, which means that being from the 19th century is no excuse for being a racist.

stay retarded.

el kebir or dunkrik escape

Our South American user's heroes writing about Latin America:

“Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”
-Marx

“In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.”
-Engels

The book said that Netherlands, Belgium and France were about to join German side to get peace, I was shocked.

kind of wenn he decided to flee france like a coward without fightibg the germs

oh look, it's the typical decontextualized and mistranslated quotes mongoloids use to claim they were racist.
how original.

it just proves you didn't even read what you claim to have, because it's well known that many communists were very racist, as our britfriend has so clearly pointed out.

>reading proves I'm not well read at all?

Since it's obvious you haven't read them, yes. And reading a few books does NOT make you well read nor educated, of which you are clearly neither.

You don't have to be so mad at your lack of education, my dimwitted friend. You are free to start learning any day! Your low iq will make it harder, but if you press on and toil hard at it, perhaps you'll learn something basic one day.

Here's some more straws to clutch at user

Attached: Staw-Widescreen11-20-07_1800x.jpg (1800x1010, 414K)

P.S. calling a bong "Mongoloid" is a racist insult. Kys Juan-Pablo you hypocrite

>it just proves you didn't even read what you claim to have, because it's well known that many communists were very racist, as our britfriend has so clearly pointed out.
they weren't racist and this wasn't even your argument before you read it on this thread.
>Since it's obvious you haven't read them, yes.
what makes you think I haven't read them?
>And reading a few books does NOT make you well read nor educated
never claimed it did, but you're claiming I'm not on the basis of... ? see, you're retarded.
>You don't have to be so mad at your lack of education, my dimwitted friend
perhaps you should stop making these dumb assumptions, I've proven you wrong several times in this thread and your argumens have been absolute dogshit, all you have are these dumb insults about how "uneducated" I am, which is based on literally nothing.
>You are free to start learning any day! Your low iq will make it harder, but if you press on and toil hard at it, perhaps you'll learn something basic one day.
imagine being this pedantic and retarded at the same time.

I'm not wasting any more time with an idiot like you, just die as soon as you can, you'd be making the entire planet a favor.

you're the one grasping at straws with literal mistranslations and decontextualized sentences.

no it's not, it has nothing to do with race

2.
OFFENSIVE
a person with Down's syndrome.

there you go.

no he was a hypocritical genocidal cunt. that's why we hate him
fuck off

>they weren't racist and this wasn't even your argument before you read it on this thread.

They were racist, and I was going to bring it up once you'd dug yourself into a proper hole you couldn't get out of.

Next you'll be gommiesplaining how Che Guevara wasn't AKSHUALLY racist against blacks.

>what makes you think I haven't read them?

Cause you could never claim they weren't racist if you'd actually, you know, read their works.

>but you're claiming I'm not on the basis of... ?

being a clear low IQ brainlet and not having read anything worthwhile.

>perhaps you should stop making these dumb assumptions,

Prove it. All you've done is *claim* to have read some commie literature. That doesn't make you educated or intelligent, even if you did read a paragraph or two. The reason I say you're a low IQ simpleton and uneducated is because you can't back up any of your claims. Someone educated would at least be able to use some sophistry to argue a random point; you can't even do that.

> just die as soon as you can, you'd be making the entire planet a favor.

lol well I live in an actual country that matters, with a proper job so I don't think I shall. Sorry, kiddo!

based

Shut up you stupid Mongol cunt

cringe

Fuck off you stupid paki cunt

Based burger btfoing commie argie fag.

Churchill made a U-turn in British politics which essentially prevented some segments of our parliament to capitulate to Nazi Germany and steered the ship through the storm so to speak.
Because of this Brits will respect and be thankful for him for his contribution to British war efforts.
He was never particularly keen in the public eye for domestic policy out of war time and due to his politics was pretty much ousted via vote once the war had finished.

This isn't a complex thing to understand why he's rather beloved in Britain and it's because of his legacy here.
His legacy in India is different as we lived under different reflections of him. It doesn't make one wrong while the other's right. It just means to different nations the legacy is different.

you just appear to lack the ability to comprehend a nuanced subject and disregard aspects of history to help boost your arguments while 'citing' your knowledge from sources which could equally reinforce the other sides arguments.

you'll stop being 12 someday.

he was a warmonger who sold Europe.
thanks to him UK colonies were returned and its empire ended

The reason why UK is less important on global scale is because of churcill, he pretty much transfered all UK influence had in the world to USA just because he wanted to kill mainland europeans.

Hitler sent tons of peace treaties between Germany and UK but he refused, instead he summoned planes to attack civilian german towns.

>bluepilled and nanny checked

Not based and bluepilled

He was a bad leader but Allies won so they get to leave out the bad stuff and write good stuff.