Winston Churchill was a DRUNKARD!

UMMM: my stats are all based upon the total casualties of the allied nations, reflect all military/civilian lives lost by them and do not categorize those losses as you are attempting to do. If you wish to filter out all non-battle deaths, I dare you to do so because you'll find my conclusion remains the same: Russia did indeed lose more military lives during WWII than any other nation.

Super bowls may technically be a combined team effort too, but those games always come down to the extra efforts of one or two singular players who brilliantly use their own skills or just as often take advantage of fumbles made by the opposing side. And the same thing happens in a pitched battle as it all comes down to which Commanders are the most willing to sacrifice their troops for a big score.

Whoever said war was a game certainly nailed it that day!

Last Edited by GSB/LTD on 01/12/2022 10:31 AM

Not true, Eisenhower wrote about them including how Patton was sick to his stomach seeing all the death because he was there. The others who were leaders far from the action wrote about the war from their distant perspectives in London.

LINK IT THEN...

QUIT TALKING SHIT...

Last Edited by EightyEight on 01/12/2022 10:32 AM

LOL sorry dude. You have armed yourself with Holocaust denier bullshit which means you are basically unarmed. In Eisenhower's Crusade In Europe he did talk about his first hand experience with the Holocaust, his visit to Ohrdruf concentration camp near Gotha. Page 446

SO NO LINK THEN?

My wife's grandfather was a worker for 3 years in the camps. According to his memoirs and stories, the official narrative is an utter and complete lie.

Eisenhower was as full of shit as much as Truman and Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler and Stalin. All one big club or socialist lairs

A link to the book? You can't just look at your copy? So you are just parroting some Holocaust denier shit and have never checked yourself?

Here:
[link to www.amazon.com (secure)]

Well, my Grandparents lived right across the street [actually Buckeye Avenue] from the Eisenhowers in Abilene, KS, going all the way back to the 1920's.

My Uncles played touch football with Ike when he'd come home on Army leave, my Mom baked cookies with Ike's Mother and my Granddad guzzled home-brewed beer with old man Eisenhower on their back porch. And every single account I ever heard from them was that Ike Eisenhower was solidly a what-you-see-is-what-you-got kind of man. But my Grandmother Barlow was the lone skeptic: she didn't like Mrs. Eisenhower because she was an Episcopalian and Grandma never trusted a kneeler! So, there's that.

And when he died, the entire town of Abilene turned out to pay solemn tribute to Ike; my own parents stood just six rows behind Nixon at the funeral - it was THAT kind of official ceremony held to honor what was a pretty simple man at heart.

That's not to suggest that Ike Eisenhower was a perfect man - not by along shot. But as far as basic humanity went, he was filled to the brim and he maintained a strict moral code that easily distinguished between right and wrong. Perhaps his Momma's kneeling paid off, after all!

Last Edited by GSB/LTD on 01/12/2022 11:11 AM

Gen Grant was quite the drinker too, and his buddy Gen Sherman apparently would join him when they got together.

It seems MANY (most?) of the great Generals of old were what today we would call Alcoholics, and on the job too, and most of the top Politicians of the day were too.

The example of Hitler NOT drinking, and several other NON drinking politicians over the years has finally convinced me that it a politician doesn't drink - he/she will be a TERRIBLE leader or do TERRIBLE things to their country.

Eisenhower's Crusade In Europe
I LOOKED AT INTERNET ARCHiVES.

So, on page 446....page 446 there is a mention of a "death camp" in GOTHA?




NO mention of the big six in poland...ie Auschwitz?
Treblinka, sobibor, chelmo,etc etc...


HMM.

one little mention on page 446....lol


LIKE I SAID BEFORE NO MENTION AT ALL BY THE BIG THREE LEADERS...

NO MENTION AT ALL!

I'll take my virtues where ever I can find them!



Last Edited by GSB/LTD on 01/12/2022 11:13 AM

That is not news

Everybody was back then

It was a culture of drunkenness, yet people remained civilized, except for the wars ofc

The hokkyhoax was created in the 1860$ by them$$$$$$

1960$

You are pushing one of the more lame Holocaust denier myths. If you wish to inform yourself about these camps why would you look to the memoirs of Churchill, De Gaulle or Eisenhower? None of them were in Poland. Eisenhower who was on the western front wrote about what he witnessed on the western front. If you want to know about those camps I would suggest Hilberg, Clinkshaw, Reitlinger or Gutman who have studied and written extensively on the subject.

commie scum

he took the bait.

you must be a fisherman?

So the lend lease program didn’t actually happen? Please so me your selective history information to prove me wrong. So because Russia lost more soldiers than everyone else that proves they defeated the Nazis?

He slurped down a fifth of whiskey a day. His drunkenness combined with his rabid hatred of Germans caused WW2 to last two years longer than it should--with 10s of millions of additional deaths.

Churchill is overrated and overhyped. A drunken murderer who liked to sing Onward Christian Soldiers when the cameras were rolling.

After Germany surrendered he tried to convince the allies to wipe out Russia with the help of the Germans....Fact!

You missed some of the details in history. As early as 1941 western aid to Russia was of DECISIVE importance. I know of no serious historian that believes that the USSR would have survived 1942 without MASSIVE western aid.

No question that the German Army suffered most of its losses against the Red Army This does not mean that the USSR could have won on its own--it is actually a ludicrous idea based on ignorance of the facts.

Yup. True. Russia were considered to have won the war back in the day. One example of how history is re-written and changed.

“but Russia lost a staggering 24,000,000! That kinda puts things into perspective now doesn't it?”

Yep ! Stalin was a great military leader . . .

he could push more men and tanks on to a battlefield than the Germans

had bullets or shells to destroy!

“Quantity has it on quality!”

Brilliant!

If I were a Russian (or one of the conquered nations of the

Soviet Union) . . . it would be difficult to decide whether Stalin

offered a better deal than Hitler’s desire to liquidate the people’s

of the East!

Even Khrushchev and most modern Russians have denounced

Stalin as a leader !

He was a DRUID !

OP you're being brain washed, you really don't understand the nazis and you wouldn't admire them so much if you would have known them.

Btw it is no secret at all that Churchill drank a lot.

And at no time have I suggested that the Soviets "won" that war all by themselves. What I DID point out was that their nation suffered the most casualties and it doesn't take a "serious historian" to determine that was due to their carrying the heaviest load. And if you haven't found any such historians that refute your point, then you certainly haven't looked very hard because there are plenty who disagree with that analysis: that in fact, the Soviets could have beaten the Germans without further allied intervention. And yes: they could have done it without the benefit of Lend-Lease. It certainly would have taken longer and tallied up a much higher Soviet body count, but the slaughter that was Stalingrad alone proves their tenacity and the millions of Soviet civilians that starved to death [while most Americans bitched about not having Sugar or Butter] further proves that singular point. How many Americans, English or French do you think died of starvation due to wartime deprivations?

It's not I who has missed historical details but rather you who have massaged them to suit a specific, popular narrative.

What I most object to is the quaint concept that the U.S. sallied forth and "rescued" nations who had already been fighting that conflict long before Churchill coaxed Roosevelt into joining the cause with men rather than just hardware. England and France may have declared war on Germany first, but the serious bloodshed was still yet too come and didn't flow like a rampaging river until the Soviets joined the battles in June of 1941, six months before the U.S. formally entered the war.

In fact, it was the U.S. that was rescued as a stagnant economy suddenly revived itself via Lend-Lease and 17-million new civilian jobs once our war-machine went into full production. Money had everything to do with our involvement as much as the corrupted ideologies of the Germans, and that too is a fact.

And let's not even get into the assertions that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen to motivate the American populace to do just that or that in 1945 Truman annihilated Hiroshima/Nagasaki [even though Japan was virtually beaten and petitioned for peace on three occasions] because that diminutive, petty man from Missouri still had something to prove and thus wiped out another generation of Japanese.

History is your friend. And a history unblemished by patriotic fervor is even more so, yet rarely embraced.

Last Edited by GSB/LTD on 01/12/2022 01:56 PM

So?

POTUS is a dullard and most of Congress are drunkards and/or addicts.

BINGO! We have a WINNER!!