Comments by "Evan" (@MrEvanfriend) on "Winston Churchill: In the Darkest Hour" video.

  1. Also, in spite of the mild speech impediment, he was a brilliant speaker and a rapier wit. One of my favorite quotes of his, in reference to his support of Stalin against the Nazis despite his being a fervent anticommunist: "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons".
    341
  2. My favorite was "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons"
    38
  3. The Black and Tans didn't commit "atrocities", that was the IRA. The American Indians and Australian Aboriginals ARE lesser cultures than the West, and their conquest at Western hands has been a massive net positive for the world. The idea that he starved millions of people to death is absolute balderdash, and he didn't use chemical weapons. If he had, you might have an argument, but he didn't, and you don't.
    27
  4. Because a Lieutenant of Cavalry was somehow responsible for that.
    26
  5. The pronunciation of Gallipoli was also...interesting.
    24
  6. Gollypony?
    23
  7. Time to set down the bong and read a book.
    22
  8. The greatest man of the 20th Century, hands down.
    18
  9. He would be an excellent statesman and a boon to Britain in every way. There is no politician anywhere in the world who is anywhere near his quality today. The best PM you've had since him was Margaret Thatcher, and since the Iron Lady, you've had...nobody worth mentioning. At least that lunatic Corbyn isn't PM. May isn't great by any means, but considering the alternative...
    11
  10. First, I'm American. Second, you have been British since the 12th century, your language is English, Gaelic is a dead language that has been artificially preserved for some reason or other, you are ethnically and culturally virtually identical (except for the part where the British can behave themselves and manage not to riot or bomb people for having slightly different religious beliefs). So Most of Ireland didn't go along with the reformation. So what? The Scots admit they're British, and they're Presbyterians. You can be Catholic and British just as easily as you can be Presbyterian and British, there's no Guy Fawkes running around or whatever nonsense from centuries ago. Pretending that Ireland is some separate country is ridiculous, and the British never should have given in to the IRA terrorist thugs.
    9
  11. Yeah, the difference is that Stalin was a mass murdering dictator responsible for millions of deaths, whereas Churchill was an elected leader who held ideas that are now considered politically incorrect. The difference between Churchill's "crimes" and Stalin's is that Stalin's crimes actually took place, whereas Churchill's are made up by revisionist fools attempting to slander a great man.
    8
  12. I didn't realize Cubans had internet access. Won't Castro's thugs take issue with you watching videos praising a man like Churchill? Good to see that you have it though. Viva Cuba Libre.
    8
  13. Actually, he did his best to put off the untold suffering that took place as a result of the collapse of the Empire.
    8
  14. Yeah, that's completely false in every imaginable way. Churchill was a champion of freedom and democracy, whereas Hitler was pretty much exactly the opposite. The fact that the Nazis DIDN'T win the war is due in large part to Churchill's iron will and brilliant leadership.
    7
  15. Yes. Churchill was by no means a drunk. He enjoyed a drink, certainly, as do most of us, and was especially fond of champagne, but he was not an alcoholic, he was a man who could control himself. Listen to any of his speeches, they're clearly delivered with a sober countenance and an iron will. To say that Churchill was a sloppy drunk is nothing short of slander.
    6
  16. Yeah...no. No, he wasn't. Nice insane revisionism though.
    6
  17. Excellent comment. The dragging through the mud of Churchill's good name because his views didn't conform to insane notions of "social justice" is absolutely despicable.
    6
  18. I get that, but Churchill was so greatly influential at such in important juncture, as architect of the Allied victory in WWII. Also, he was in so many places from Omdurman to the Western front to London during the Blitz. And, in addition to being a politician and soldier, he was also a prolific writer - and a very good one at that, try reading his History of the English Speaking Peoples. A true renaissance man.
    5
  19. I don't see anything wrong with that, except possibly that nowadays poison gas isn't considered acceptable. As for the rest, yeah, what he said about American Indians and Australian aboriginals is pretty much dead on. The fact that he said it in terms that aren't PC doesn't make it any less true. What he says about the Irish is also absolutely correct. Ireland has been under the British Crown since Henry II. The refusal of the Irish to behave in a civilized manner and admit that they're British has been one of the worst problems in the Western World. As for his opinions on Indians, so what? The fact remains he was arguably the greatest man of the 20th century, whatever your foolish ethnic quibbles about him.
    5
  20. His first "girlfriend" never knew he existed until, when he was Fuehrer, she heard that he had been infatuated with her as a young man. The fact that he loved animals (and children, too) doesn't make him any less of a monster. Being nice to a dog (who he later tested a cyanide capsule on) isn't much compared to something like 11 million people dead, not counting the fact that he started WWII. As much of a monster as Hitler was, he was a fascinating historical figure.
    5
  21. When you said you were Cuban I assumed you meant that you were still there. Good to hear that you're not.
    5
  22. Ghandi was a horrible human being in every way. Had he not existed, India would be 50 years ahead of where it is now at least.
    4
  23. This is absolute nonsense.
    4
  24.  @markharrison2544  Uh, yeah, he was. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how the British Parliamentary system works would understand that. What I imagine you mean is that "his first appointment as Prime Minister came when he replaced Neville Chamberlain and not through election". When the election was held, Chamberlain was head of the Conservative Party, and thus became PM. When Chamberlain resigned, Churchill, who had been elected as a Member of Parliament, took his place. Churchill then remained head of the Conservative Party until his retirement, including another stint as PM. The British don't choose their PM the way we in the US choose our President. Generally, you ought to have at least a basic grasp of what it is you're trying to talk about before making indefensible comments.
    4
  25.  @markharrison2544  That was a German submarine. Churchill led a very interesting life and did many things, but he was never a torpedoman on a German submarine. In fact, he never served in any capacity on a German submarine. Mainly because he was British, and participated in two wars AGAINST the Germans, and none alongside them. Like I said, best to have at least a very basic understanding of the subject you're trying to talk about.
    4
  26. The best of men.
    4
  27. You say "racist" and "xenophobic". I say he was an unapologetic Englishman, and valued honesty about other cultures instead of political correctness. His views on Islam specifically were, and still are, quite poignant. Western society as a whole would be far better off if we heeded his observations now instead of dismissing them as "racist".
    4
  28. Ridiculous answer. Jenghis Khan was a warlord who conquered vast swaths of Eurasia and put countless millions to the sword. Winston Churchill was a brilliant elected leader who defeated one of the greatest evils of the 20th century (National Socialism), and stood firm against the other (Communism). Churchill never did anything that any reasonable person could possibly consider "crimes against humanity". What, you don't like him because he didn't like Ghandi? Read a book. Ghandi was a pervert and Hitler apologist who set India back at least 50 years. Or because he fought the Madhi at Omdurman? Yeah, look how great Sudan is doing without colonial supervision. Churchill's unwillingness to apologize for Western Civilization is one of the things that made him a great man. Drop the disgusting politically correct revisionism and do some reading on Winston Churchill, who was undoubtedly one of the greatest men in the 20th century and arguably the greatest.
    4
  29. Countless lives, surely. It would have been more if Roosevelt and Truman had heeded his warnings about Stalin, and not been so conciliatory.
    3
  30. Unfortunately, he was unable to stop Ghandi, or he would have saved countless Indian lives. Ghandi set India back at least half a century.
    3
  31. Why? It's actually quite interesting, and gives insight into most Western languages, English included. I wish Latin had been required or even available when I was in school.
    2
  32. Yeah, letting Greece rule itself has worked out really well. Between leftist terrorism and the fact that the government spends money it doesn't have like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse on payday, Greece is basically a poster child for bad governance. But hey, this is somehow Churchill's fault for trying to protect the Greek people from communist rebels, and keep Greece out of the Soviet sphere of influence (because being a Soviet client state worked out so well for Poland...and Hungary...and Czechoslovakia...and everywhere else), because reasons I guess. So we can add "saving Greece from communism" to Churchill's list of achievements.
    2
  33. Greece's fiscal irresponsibility is the fault of Greek politicians and Greek voters for electing them. Your historical revisionism aside, how do you think it would have turned out had the British not been in Greece to keep the communists at bay? Would you have wanted a Hoxha or a Ceaucescu or a Rakosi ruling Greece with an iron fist, disappearing anyone who dared to have a dissenting political opinion? You whinge about a British occupation, how would you have liked a Soviet one? If the rest of Eastern Europe is any example, those came with mass rape and murder, and the Red Army would also steal anything that wasn't bolted down. You clearly don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
    2
  34. So you'd rather he abandoned Greece and let Stalin in?
    2
  35.  @markharrison2544  I don't, and your idiotic conspiracy theories are utterly detached from reality. The fact of the matter is that Churchill was a great man. Arguably the best of the 20th century. However, your politics don't align with his, and so you're willing to ignore the actual historical record to slander a great man, simply because you don't like his politics. Let me guess, you claim to hate "Nazis" and "fascists". Well, Churchill was the mind behind defeating ACTUAL Nazis and ACTUAL fascists. I'm not talking about uninformed posts on social media, I'm talking about real resolve and real strategic planning to defeat bona fide authoritarian regimes, not just "people who hold opinions different from yours". It's a shame that you've blinded yourself with a ridiculous ideology. That your hatred of those who see things differently from you has led you to such indefensible "beliefs" that you claim to hold about one of the greatest men in history. That your hatred has led you to conspiracy theories about how Churchill was never elected, or how he was somehow magically the captain of a German submarine, or whatever other nonsense. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
    2
  36. I also noticed the Christmas music.
    1
  37.  MartyrX  Yeah, you're objectively wrong there. Churchill led the world in the effort against Hitler. He was literally the best world leader of the 20th century, with nobody else even coming close. Thatcher made Britain into a relevant world power again, and was instrumental in the defeat of communism in Eastern Europe. While she couldn't reach Churchill's level of greatness, that doesn't mean that she wasn't an excellent leader and one who made her nation and the world far better than she found them.
    1
  38.  MartyrX  Yeah, you're a fool if you believe any of that revisionist nonsense. Churchill built a coalition that was able to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, while warning of the dangers of Stalin and the Soviets as well (unfortunately, Roosevelt was a fool and didn't heed his warnings). Without Churchill, Europe and Britain would've all ended up under the yoke of the Nazis and/or Communists. The "genocidal" claims are lunacy that has no basis in fact and has been thoroughly debunked, and people who call others "racist" tend to be intellectual non entities who have no actual arguments to make. Thatcher was able to to right a quickly sinking ship in the British economy which had been thoroughly mismanaged in the years leading up to her administration. Yes, this led to temporary hard times, followed by a level of prosperity which would have never happened if the socialistic policies of previous governments hadn't been reversed. This is objective reality, not the revisionist fantasy that you're trafficking in. Read a history book, not just hard left propaganda.
    1
  39.  MartyrX  You clearly need to be told about British leaders by someone who has a working knowledge of history, instead of, you know, the extreme left propagandists that you seem to get your ideas from.
    1
  40.  MartyrX  Yeah, based on your rhetoric, you at least get your ideas from extreme leftists. Nobody to the right of Karl Marx would consider Churchill "evil" - there's a reason he's generally recognized as one of, if not the, greatest Britons ever and greatest men of any nation of the 20th century. But yeah, you prefer some recent debunked propaganda about how he was somehow "genocidal" due to a famine in India that he had no role in causing and worked hard to relieve (even though he was dealing with a rather pressing world war at the time). You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
    1
  41.  MartyrX  Um, no. Not "gods", but great people. You can't actually point to any objective "evils", because there aren't any. You want to talk about evils, we can discuss the Nazis and Communists, two of the most evil regimes in human history, who Churchill and Thatcher were respectively key in defeating. Try reading something besides extremist propaganda for once.
    1
  42.  MartyrX  Again, you don't actually use arguments, just slogans. You're just taking extreme left propaganda at face value without actually looking into the facts of the matter. You are objectively wrong about your claims.
    1
  43.  MartyrX  You aren't arguing. You're repeating extremist left-wing slogans that are not backed up by actual historical fact. There's a reason that poll after poll finds that Churchill is the single most admired person in British history - because real life isn't influenced by your extremist slogans. Hopefully someday you'll read an actual book and your irrational hatred of your own national heroes will be replaced by actual understanding.
    1
  44.  MartyrX  Yeah, it isn't. It's revisionist nonsense, all of which has been thoroughly debunked, along with meaningless insults like "racist", a word that is used by idiots to describe something they dislike but cannot argue against.
    1
  45.  MartyrX  You don't listen to people who know what they're talking about at all apparently. You only listen to extreme left propagandists. You call people "racist", which is the most meaningless thing you can call someone. You unironically accuse a man who led the fight against the most notoriously genocidal regime ever of "genocide" based on thoroughly debunked nonsense. The stupidity of that is mind-boggling. A man who directed his air force to drop countless tons of bombs on Nazi Germany, who spoke out about the evil that Hitler was up to while the rest of the world ignored it, who was determined to fight against Naziism when most in his own government wanted to negotiate a peace, he's somehow "genocidal" because a famine in India happened and he had some trouble getting grain ships through a war zone to relieve it. Not only is it incredibly stupid and willfully ignorant to say those things about Churchill, it is also morally bankrupt.
    1
  46.  MartyrX  Oh, I don't know what I'm talking about? You literally say nothing but the extreme left slogan "racist". You reduce the legacy of a great man to a couple mean comments he made about Indians and mahometans. You are a fool to do so, and you clearly have zero understanding of actual history.
    1
  47.  MartyrX  Uh, no, I don't. Churchill didn't declare war on Germany at all, that was Chamberlain. Churchill did recognize that Hitler was a threat to everyone though, and mentioned it when nobody else saw it. Meanwhile, you continue to put your willful ignorance of history on display with utterly reductive nonsense and outright falsehoods.
    1
  48.  MartyrX  I find it ironic how you literally make no actual points and only repeat the same slogans over and over - slogans that mean nothing and are based on nonsense that no reasonable historian would accept as fact - and then accuse me of ignorance and repetitiveness. The lack of self awareness is every bit as great as the wilful ignorance. You still haven't defended your ridiculous and thoroughly debunked "points". You still just call me ignorant for being American while reducing Churchill's legacy to...mean things he said about other nationalities (without recognizing the irony of that, of course). You have nothing to say, and you're saying it too loud.
    1
  49.  MartyrX  You haven't even made any points. You've just repeated "racist, genocide, blah blah blah". This is decidedly false, and yet you repeat it ad infinitum as if it actually meant anything.
    1
  50.  MartyrX  Uh, Churchill was a soldier for quite a while, and fought various people in India and Africa (and Europe). Using words that are politically incorrect a hundred years later as "proof" of anything is entirely disingenuous and you should be ashamed of yourself for even making that attempt. Putting down armed uprisings in Africa isn't "genocide". The Bengal famine was caused by a variety of factors, none of which Churchill had any control over. Your argument, such as it is, boils down to "he said some mean things about people from other countries". And for the sake of that, you're willing to dismiss his myriad contributions to mankind. As for Thatcher, yes, her privatization of large swaths of the economy caused temporary turmoil. It is also the reason that Britain isn't like Greece right now. The fact is that a free market economy is far better for prosperity and decent living conditions for as many people as possible than a command economy. Thatcher recognized that when many in Britain did not. She also, along with US President Reagan and Pope John Paul II, is one of the three world leaders who were able to apply pressure to the Soviet Union that aided in their eventual collapse - which of course was an unequivocal good thing for millions of people under the communist boot. You don't know what you're talking about, please try and educate yourself on some basic 20th century history. These things matter.
    1
  51.  MartyrX  Again, your lack of self awareness is really astonishing. You make absurd claims based entirely in extremist propaganda and then claim that it is I who lacks education. Shameful.
    1
  52. If I was British and had the opportunity, of course I would vote for Churchill. The fact that he was from an era before politically correct foolishness is no mark against him. Churchill was PM during peacetime, and an excellent one. Any Briton today would be insane not to vote for Churchill if given the opportunity. Unfortunately, the world is unlikely to see another politician of his quality anytime soon.
    1