"Germany's unforgivable crime before WWII was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore." Churchill, The Second World War -Bern, 1960.
There you have it straight from Porky Pig's mouth fake history peddlers.
wow really made my almonds...
Yes, this is definitely a real quote isn't it?
>Being a guillible fool that gobbles up every stupid shit he reads on the net
Get a job, faggot. Don't be such a disgrace to your parents.
Yes, Germany attempted to escape from international finance by overheating its economy, utilizing ludicrous amounts of MEFO bills, looting the nations it occupied (see the wages of destruction by Adam Tooze), and selling its gold reserves (and those of occupied countries) to its creditors.
Yup, the Nazi's were surely against usury.
"The Jews are wonderful. Only a fool would hate them or wish them ill" - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Churchill was payed by a group that included Jews, though.
When? Where?
This seems to be about a different quote and book. The quote OP posted is from "The Second World War" 1960 by Churchill
>Hey Jimbo, how about this uncited/discredited claim that no reputable historian or Holocaust scholar purports to be true? Pretty quackin' silly, huh?
The truth needs no laws to protect it.
Hmm, it's almost like Stormfags keep changing the source of the """"quote"""" or something...
Which page?
It doesn't need faulty information being pushed either.
"90% of internet quotes are made up" - René Descartes, On the Origin of Species, 1515.
“Should Germany merchandise [do business] again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain.” – Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)
“Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it.” – Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US – General Robert E. Wood)
“We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)
British negotiating with Hitler, a play with 3 acts.
Act 1:
Adolf: Hark, Versailles is unfair, let's revise it!
Perfidious Albion: Sure
Act 2:
Adolf: Here, at this Munich spire, I shall have the element of my heart's desire, the Sudaten, german and whole, into Germania's arms will go.
Perfidious albion: Will you revoke your claims on all else? On elsass, Danzig, Memel, and Tangikiya?
Adolf: Sure
Act 3
Adolf: Hark, Munich is unfair, let's revise it! Into my arms Bohemia, Memel, and other parts shall arrive.
Perfidious Albion: Nay, see here-
Adolf: Yet Danzig, it must be german I advise you!
Perfidious Albion: No.
Adolf: Please?
Perfidious Albion: No, seize Danzig and its war
Adolf: War it is, and you started it, as all /pol/ will one day attest!
see
Was Churchill the Prime Minister in 1939?
I was under the impression he was considered a hawkish nobody until Hitler's actions vindicated him?
Then why the fake news media on cable and other mainstream sources? Why the disinformation education?
The Second World War was published between 1948 and 1953...
so he wasn't prime minister when he said that and that somehow negates his words? and the mental gymnastics to dance away from reality begin.
I'm just trying to figure out, if the Holocaust is such an obvious hoax, why are Based Hugh's redpills lacking citations & full of made up claims?
Churchill was not the prime minister or in control of national policy when hitler started WW2.
No, it just means that those were considered the hawkish rambling of a "literally who" rather than indicative of British policy towards Germany prior to 1940.
>miraclesfor.me
This is complete idiocy. Hitler relied more on international finance than any other power to rearm pre-WW2, then used financial levers as means to extract wealth from conquered territories.
This quote appears all over the Internet yet only ever as text. Noone ever seems to take a photograph of the page or give which volume and page number it's from to confirm it...
It's no use OP. As you can see, the cognitive dissonance and virtue signaling in this (((leftist))) echo chamber is far too overwhelming for any real historical discussion.
Why did they indoctrinate German citizens about human skin lampshades and human soap that never existed and make videos attempting to make regular showers look sinister and creepy peddling them as gas showers when they weren't and you can see videos of them that show they were just regular showers connected to hot water heaters? I can't even find the video to show you anymore because people like you keep taking this information down. Why do you have to defend your position by silencing the truth?
I could debate you all day, or even livestream a living survivor's (with code on arm) testimony, but there is no amount of concrete proof, no rhetoric, that would sway you from your chosen position.
If there is a certain quanta of proof, explain what it is. Otherwise you're just a stormfag.
it's indicative of british sentiment and political/financial goal toward germany whether it was official or not yet... churchill singing about war on germany for financial reasons, you can't even deny it.
Give me the volume and page number this quote appears on and I'll discuss it with you.
I was under the impression that the "human soap" myth was just a wartime rumor which has since been discredited, and isn't promoted by any reputable historian.
It's indicative of Churchill's sentiment, sure. The British government? Not so much.
So called witnesses and book writers have been exposed as liars, so your witness testimony holds no water.
don't you ever open your eyes and wonder why there are all of these wars constantly in the middle east on countries that decide to have their own currency?
Well, yes, since there were Jewish citizens of the UK and he was a member of the government. By that logic, Hitler was also paid by a group (Germany's people) which included Jews when they filed their taxes.
>made up quotes
>indicating anything
Disregarding of course that even if they're real, it wasn't Britain who started the war anyway.
You have jingoists and ultranationalists in every nation. The jingoists gained power in Great Britain after Hitler had made his intent to disregard the promises of munich perfectly clear.
Germany was responsible for proving the anti-Teuton fearmongers like Churchill right through its genocidal belligerence.
So there is no solid type or quantity of proof. That means you're a zealot, dogmatically committed to your cause, who cannot be swayed by reason. Why should anyone listen to anything you say?
yeah, it's just like someone closing their eyes and going, 'no, no, no, no' because it is too uncomfortable for them to see.
>some witnesses are liars so all witnesses are liars
Fantastic logic there.
except Churchill became the british government and was able to execute his plans
Which volume and which page?
Where is the quote in the book? What page? Can you find it?
Churchill gained power because Germany broke Munich through continued expansionism and belligerance, then declared war on multiple nations.
Jingoists gain power when their country goes to war. Blame Hitler.
Months after the war had already started.
After the war had already started and had been going on for several months...
>was able to execute his plans
Of winning the war that his government was fighting?
Germans were being targeted in Danzig and cut off from Germany. All Germany wanted was transportation rights to Danzig. No matter what Hitler requested and allowed for, the British and French said no, because they wanted war, just like Churchill said.
Some witnesses are liars so how do you know which are liars and which aren't? That is logic actually.
>Germans were being targeted in Danzig an
Before you post them, look very, very carefully at the dates involved.
>No matter what Hitler requested and allowed for, the British and French said no, because the last time they had given in to his demands, he reneged on their agreement and took much more.
10/10
This shit is beautiful
Germany relinquished all further territorial demands at Munich. All.
He made demands of the Poles. The poles refused. He then declared war.
This is clear cut treaty breaking and agression.
By carrying out source analysis. You know, that thing historians do?
can you cite any of this since you keep demanding the same? plus we can talk about nevil if you'd like since you think Churchill had no part in anything and want to downplay his role since you can't refute his war mongering.
Churchill was one man. One anti-Teuton jingoist. He was politically marginalized while Britain tried to appease Germany. It was only when the Germans showed they would break Munich, and then attack European countries without further justification that he rose to power.
>No matter what Hitler requested and allowed for, the British and French said no
This is what stormniggers actually believe.
Glad someone appreciates my work.
Baited into war with Poland, because their were no concessions made to protect German citizens in newly (stolen from Germany) Polish lands.
You're asking me to cite Churchill only becoming Prime Minister several months after the start of the war?
>Germans were being targeted in Danzig
>can you cite any of this since you keep demanding the same?
gov.uk
>The interwar years saw Churchill again ‘cross the floor’ from the Liberals, back to the Conservative Party. He served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924, when he controversially opted for Britain to re-join the Gold Standard. Following the Tory electoral defeat in 1929, Churchill lost his seat and spent much of the next 11 years out of office, mainly writing and making speeches. Although he was alone in his firm opposition to Indian Independence, his warnings against the Appeasement of Nazi Germany were proven correct when the Second World War broke out in 1939.
>Following Neville Chamberlain’s resignation in 1940, Churchill was chosen to succeed him as Prime Minister of an all-party coalition government.
Idiot.
He broke Munich first (proving that he was a warmonger) by seizing bohemia and Memel, and then had the audacity to claim further lands?
Why would France and Britain ignore such agressive actions and treaty breaking?
I was under the impression that the so-called "Polish Corridor" was inhabited largely by Poles, and had been liberated from Germany by the Poles themselves. Danzig (majority German) was not part of Poland, IIRC.
Well, the French and British attacked Germany for attacking one country, Poland which they had to invade because of ethnic cleansing of Germans. At that point Germany launched an offensive war because they figured a fast, surprise victory and short war was their best hope.
>which they had to invade because of ethnic cleansing of Germans
see
>because of ethnic cleansing of Germans.
Citation still needed
Germany had at this point annexed 2 countries in violation of versailles, violated the Munich pact twice, and you've provided no evidence that Germans were being killed sporadically or en masse.
Why wouldn't France and Great Britain want to stop such a warmonger?
You're asking me to cite/believe fake history like writing a lie in a book makes it true if you can point to it 70 years later.
who controls the present now controls the past, history is a lie, you have to fiercely defend it because it's your foundation as a historyfag
russia is doing the same thing today, do you support that? even if the population in the areas is mostly russian dosent mean violents is the right way to get it back.
>ethnic cleansing of Germans
citation needed from a fake history and propaganda history. i don't need to cite your propaganda history and you do if you are going to take that position which none of you do. so we're supposed to trust some amateur history students on everything they say.
You're incoherent. Churchill was a long jingoist who represented an anti-Teuton faction. That faction only gained strength due to Hitler's treaty breaking omnidirectional belligerance and agression.
russia is doing the same thing today, do you support that? even if the population in the areas is mostly russian dosent mean violents is the right way to get it back
Moving the goalposts, I know you're doing it for the right reasons, but don't drag current day into clear cut Nazi idiocy.
Even better, here's the Hansard entry for his first speech to parliament after becoming PM.
hansard.millbanksystems.com
>HISTORY IS A COMPLETE LIE
>But my specific version of it is completely true!
i mean you can look at the videos of this stuff, the evidence, but you want to cite fake history and false witness testimony. you can just look at the world today and piece it together, but you prefer your cave of shadow puppets. i hope you remember the history of greece to get that one if you care at all about philosphers say which i doubt, it would be above your heads.
so they baited germany into invading poland, because they knew that was how they'd get their war especially from people like churchill who later regretted how they were puppeted masterfully into attacking fellow europeans
>Cites massacres
>Provides no evidence, says: learn about it yourself
>Declares that no amount of contradictory evidence will sway them
You're a fanatic
>I don't need to do something as simple as give the volume or page number of a book that would completely and instantly validate my argument, because history is fake
Ok.
Germany kept breaking treaties. They kept stealing land from other countries, like the rump Czech state, or Lithuania. Germany was the clear cut agressor, carving chunks of clay or destroying nations while breaking treaties. You call that "being baited?"
>Don't believe books or historians, believe my anonymous shitposts on a Hawaiian Smooth Jazz board
go watch youtube, you can watch hitlers speeches calling for peace, you're the fanatic for a fake history, a fanatic for a battle of good vs evil that never actually happened. afraid you'll lose your job if you delve into the actual evidence?
But user, I thought youtube was a zionist website?
I don't like kikes because they all seem predisposed towards leftism and anti-nationalism.
There is no standard of proof that would convince you you're wrong, correct? No amount of evidence that would sway your mind?
Hitler called for peace after repeatedly breaking treaties in order to seize territory from neighboring nations and annex neighbors, such as the bohemian lands.
Why would anyone believe that his calls for peace were anything but horseshit?
Germany was the clear cut aggressor, while financially they were being starved to death. Tell me more lies from your fairy tales. Not to mention Churchill screaming for war like a pig in heat.
that's you actually
>Break treaties and invade other countries
>Beg for peace afterwards, while also demanding that you be allowed to keep what you recently acquired
Sounds about right.
i mean you're just citing the history written by the victor, and you can look at the world and see the evidence that my position is correct, but you can't because it would erode your foundation as accepted by the liberal society that feeds you
>80 years later and people are still spouting the "6 gortrillion innocent german minorities slaughtered by bloodthirsty poles" meme
The Nazis had some rocking propaganda didn't they
Churchill had no major power until made PM, which was only after major german agression. Germany had full access to global trade and finance before the war, which they used through Hjalmar Schact's policies and MEFO bills to rearm.
You're not responding to any of the points.
But user, I thought Hitler turned the economy around and Germany was the envy of the world, which is why (((((((((they)))))))) decided to crush them?
Yeah, Goebbels was effective.
Hitler broke munich. Twice. He used MEFO bills and purposefully overheat his own economy to rearm. He then had the gall to sue for peace after invading a third country.
people still spouting that 15 to 30 cremation ovens at auschwitz burned 4 million bodies and they gassed 2000 jews at a time in fairly small halls and then had jewish slaves pull them out with canes one at a time hauling them up elevators into the crematories.
Was Veeky Forums always so chock full of fanatic leftists?
If you're looking to regurgitate debunk denalist bits, why not head over to the evidence thread?
>
hitler did turn their economy around, but it was not the envy of the world that got them aggro'd. it was that the international banks could no longer profit from them like slaves. Germans enjoyed paying about a 1/4 income rent, and reasonable mortgage loans that could be canceled by procreating. Hitler was Time magazine's man of the year.
Nah, but it is full of people laughing at stormfags.
>gets BTFO so he changes the subject
Is it time to ignore the actual arguments presented and just chant buzzwords ALREADY?
