Lion of the Blogosphere

Darkest Hour (2017)

I don’t think I need to have a spoilers warning. I mean, you all know what happened, it’s history. Winston Churchill becomes Prime Minister, then he gives a good speech or two.

* * *

At the beginning of the movie, I was wondering, who is this senile old drunk man? And where is Winston Churchill, said to be the greatest statesman of the 20th Century? Well it turned out that the senile old drunk man was Winston Churchill.

So we have actor Gary Oldman, 59 in real life but looks ten years younger than his biological age, wearing a bunch of makeup and fake fat so he looks like he’s a fat man in his late 70s, in order to play Winston Churchill who was actually only 65 when he took over as Prime Minister in 1940.

Gary Oldman was nominated for an Academy Award for best actor for this role. Maybe some people think it’s great acting because they can actually see the acting, but it seems to me like a massive case of overacting. Oldman plays Churchill the way William Shatner played James T. Kirk, and no one would ever think of giving William Shatner an award for great acting.

This movie turned into two hours of watching a doddering old drunk guy chain-smoking cigars. Pretty disappointing. I refuse to believe that Churchill was like that in real life.

* * *

The current trend for movies that take place in the past is to show the past as being full of racism, homophobia and misogyny. We don’t see any of that in this movie. Not a gay person to be seen at all. No women are sexually harassed. The movie does show discrimination against women, because not a single woman is shown holding a high level job in government or the military. The women are relegated to the typing pool and not allowed into the men-only map room. Of course it would be a huge rewrite of history to actually have women in those positions when historically there were none. But none of the women complain about it or even take notice of the slight.

Talking about huge rewrites of history, you wouldn’t think to find many black people in London in 1940 (I estimate that 1 in a 1000 Londoners were black at the time), but Churchill manages to find one when he decides to take a subway ride in order to talk to the common people, and a black man named Marcus gives him wise advice. See the Magical Negro Trope. “In order to show the world that minority characters are not bad people, one will step forward to help a ‘normal’ person, with their pure heart and folksy wisdom.” Yep, that describes the encounter perfectly.

The movie is able to be nominated for an Academy Award despite not checking off SJW checkboxes because of the Hitler myth. Hitler and the Nazis are considered such great evil that it transcends anything to do with homophobia and stuff like that, and therefore they are allowed to portray a bunch of old white men as being good people who don’t harass women or discriminate against gays and blacks, because they are fighting Hitler! Fighting Hitler is like checking off ten SJW boxes all at once!

World War II is the only war that Hollywood feels completely comfortable in endorsing as a clear-cut fight of good guys against bad guys. There’s nothing sociopathic about Churchill ordering thousands of men to their death in order to delay the Germans in their assault on Dunkirk. It was necessary in order to fight against Hitler, and all of the wusses on his war council who were aghast at the idea can be portrayed as a bunch of girly men without the backbone for real leadership. In contrast, if one can imagine a movie about George Bush and the Gulf War, the movie would take a much different moral viewpoint.

* * *

If it’s a choice between giving the Best Actor award to Gary Oldman or to the black guy in the movie Get Out, I say give it to the black guy. Get Out was enjoyable as schlocky horror movie and the black guy was pretty likeable, but Darkest Hour bored me to tears, until the we shall fight on the beaches speech at the end. I don’t know how a senile drunk guy managed to write and deliver such a good speech.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 26, 2018 at EST pm

Posted in Movies

113 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. interesting thing about churchill is he was physically dependent on alcohol. one year he spent 60k on champagne. yet he won the war and the nobel prize for literature and lived to 90. one of the few for whom this is possible.

    the first white yokozuna

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • Did he actually drink 60k of champagne? That sounds more like it was schmooze support for his many dinner guests.

      Richard

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

      • my source is malcolm gladwell (so it may be made up?).

        but if it were in today’s dollars it would be easy.

        churchill drank two bottles a day. that’s $82 a bottle. how much is a bottle of dom perignon? more than $82.

        gladwell offered this fact as an example of how churchill was bad with money, not as an example of his being an alcoholic.

        the first whike yokozuna

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • Churchill winning Nobel Prize was like Obama winning Nobel Prize. Stalin was more discreet. He never won Stalin Prize.

      My Two Cents

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • Churchill winning Nobel Prize was like Obama winning Nobel Prize.

        Youré right.

        Hitler should have posthumously won Churchill’s Nobel Prize.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • Your opinion seems to be worth just about the same as your moniker.

        gda

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • You know, if Germany had won the war, that literature Nobel would have undoubtedly gone to Hitler, another infamous polemicist and addict. It was just Sweden sucking up to a winner.

      Jaakko Raipala

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  2. Lots of great writers have been drunks. https://thoughtcatalog.com/oliver-miller/2014/03/99-writers-who-were-alcoholics-drunks-addicted-to-booze-etc/

    Just like lots of great rockers were/are junkies

    Dave

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

  3. Agreed. It was boring, Basically him talking for 2 hours. No action at all. I thought there’d be at least some action.

    The focus on the random black guy on the subway was just so obvious and artless. Don’t they realize that people can tell how they did it deliberately?

    Tom

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

  4. I was transfixed by notion that basic sanity always seems to be hanging by a thread no what epoch we live through in the West.

    Anon

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

  5. Couldn’t even get through this movie. Was more boring than Dunkirk. Netflix series “The Crown” was far superior.

    How does Churchill even get away with this “Our Darkest Hour” nonsense? I mean I can understand how he got away with it at the time, but how historians treat his overblown rhetoric seriously?

    England was in a completely elective war they could exited any time they wanted with the only loss being the money and troops they had already spent. How does that translate in to a nation’s “Darkest Hour”? It’s especially galling when you consider places in Eastern Europe were indeed going through something that could arguably at least be called their Darkest Hour (and these are places that experienced the Mongol Horde and Attila the Hun!).

    PerezHBD

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • Cut the “Hitler was really a good guy” crap.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 26, 2018 at EST pm

      • That Hitler was evil and that Britain had it easy compared to Eastern Europe can both be true.

        Dave Pinsen

        January 26, 2018 at EST pm

      • That’s just the Melian Dialogue in action. “You know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

        Richard

        January 27, 2018 at EST am

      • That Hitler was evil and that Britain had it easy compared to Eastern Europe can both be true.

        They had it relatively easy because he lost.

        You have and the other Hitler apologist paleoconservatives have no idea whether Hitler would have agreed to leave Britain alone if they allowed him to control the Continent.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • Cut the “Hitler was really a good guy” crap.

        If only you had the power to understand exactly how alternate histories would play out like Hitler’s crackpot defenders on the internet.

        If you did, you would see clearly that Britain would have lived in complete peace and harmony with Hitler’s Europe.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • There is a German historian wrote a book that the guy who personified Hitler was just an actor in the likes of Charlie Chaplin with his toothcomb mustache and eccentric walk. Can you believe this?

        JS

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • They had it relatively easy because he lost.

        They had it relatively easy before he lost, as the example of the different treatment of British versus Slavic POWs shows.

        You have and the other Hitler apologist paleoconservatives have no idea whether Hitler would have agreed to leave Britain alone if they allowed him to control the Continent.

        I am not a Hitler apologist, and I didn’t say he would have left Britain alone had he won. Though it’s possible Britain would have had a relationship with Germany similar to what Finland had with the USSR after the war.

        Dave Pinsen

        January 28, 2018 at EST pm

      • The USSR was unable to expand because of fear of the United States.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 28, 2018 at EST pm

      • They had it relatively easy before he lost, as the example of the different treatment of British versus Slavic POWs shows.

        You quoted approvingly someone who said Germany’s relatively better treatment of British POW’s went against the UK’s “national myth”.

        Except it doesn’t go against their “national myth” in any because no one has ever justified Britain’s role by claiming the British had it as bad as, for example, the Slavic residents of Leningrad.

        The justification was Britain’s existence would be entirely dependent on the mood of a homicidal maniac if Churchill hadn’t continued the war (remember it was Chamberlain’s government that declared war – was Chamberlain the one who wronged Hitler?). The risk of a Nazi dominated Europe, even if there was a realistic possibility Hitler would have left them in peace, was far too high for anyone but the most morally corrupt to say Churchill got it wrong.

        The only reason to bring up this strawman – made by no defender of Churchill – that Britain was treated relatively better than Slavs is not to discuss POWs.

        The real purpose is to condemn Britain’s decision to fight Hitler at all, a decision that is completely justified on by a simple risk-reward calculus (unless you someone can prove without question there was no risk).

        I am not a Hitler apologist, and I didn’t say he would have left Britain alone had he won.

        Of course not.

        You just mindlessly quote paleoconservative/altright talking points that suggest on the sly the war was wrong by assuring everyone they alone know he would have really left them alone based on racial solidarity.

        Those are, btw, the same paleocons/altrightists who today love Slavic Eastern Europe but gloss over the fact a victory by Hitler would have meant the extermination of another 50-100 million Slavs in the name of Lebensraum.

        Though it’s possible Britain would have had a relationship with Germany similar to what Finland had with the USSR after the war.

        Or Nazi Germany would have broken their Empire to pieces (or worse) like they were going to do with Switzerland if they had defeated Russia:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

        Operation Tannenbaum (“Fir Tree”), known earlier as Operation Grün (“Green”),[1] was a planned but cancelled invasion of Switzerland by Nazi Germany and Italy during World War II.

        …..

        In August 1942, Hitler further described Switzerland as “a pimple on the face of Europe” and as a state that no longer had a right to exist, denouncing the Swiss people as “a misbegotten branch of our Volk.”[3] Switzerland as a small, multilingual, decentralized democracy – in which German-speakers felt an affinity with and loyalty towards their French-speaking fellow Swiss citizens, rather than towards their German brothers across the border – was from a National Socialist viewpoint a total antithesis of the racially homogeneous and collectivized “Führer State”.[4] Hitler also believed that the independent Swiss state had come to existence due to the temporary weakness of the Holy Roman Empire, and now that its power had been re-established after the National Socialist takeover, the country had become obsolete.[4]

        …..

        Germany started planning the invasion of Switzerland on 25 June 1940, the day France surrendered. At this point the German Army in France consisted of three army groups with two million soldiers in 102 divisions.[16] Switzerland and Liechtenstein were surrounded by Occupied France and the Axis Powers, and so Guisan issued Operationsbefehl Nr. 10, a complete overhaul of existing Swiss defensive plans. The St. Maurice and St. Gotthard Passes in the south and the Fortress Sargans in the northeast would serve as the defense line. The Alps would be their fortress. The Swiss 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps were to fight delaying actions at the border, while all who could retreated to the Alpine refuge known as the Réduit national. The population centers were, however, all located in the flat plains of the north. They would have to be left to the Germans in order for the rest to survive.[17]

        Hitler demanded to see plans for the invasion of Switzerland after the armistice with France. Franz Halder, the head of OKH, recalled: “I was constantly hearing of outbursts of Hitler’s fury against Switzerland, which, given his mentality, might have led at any minute to military activities for the army.”[18] Captain Otto-Wilhelm Kurt von Menges in OKH submitted a draft plan for the invasion. Generaloberst Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb’s Heeresgruppe ‘C’ (HGr. C), led by Generalleutnant Wilhelm List and 12th Army would conduct the attack. Leeb himself personally reconnoitered the terrain, studying the most promising invasion routes and paths of least resistance.[19] Menges noted, in his plan, that Swiss resistance was unlikely and that a nonviolent Anschluss was the most likely result. With “the current political situation in Switzerland,” he wrote, “it might accede to ultimatum demands in a peaceful manner, so that after a warlike border crossing a rapid transition to a peaceful invasion must be assured.”[20]

        …..

        A document named Aktion S (bearing the full letterhead Reichsführer-SS, SS-Hauptamt, Aktion Schweiz) was also found within the Himmler files. It detailed at length the planned process for the establishment of Nazi rule in Switzerland from its initial conquest by the Wehrmacht up to its complete consolidation as a German province. It is not known whether this prepared plan was endorsed by any high-level members of the German government.[5]

        After the Second Armistice at Compiègne in June 1940, the Reich Interior Ministry produced a memorandum on the annexation of a strip of eastern France from the mouth of the Somme to Lake Geneva, intended as a reserve for post-war German colonization.[23] The planned dissection of Switzerland would have accorded with this new French-German border, effectively leaving the French-speaking region of Romandy to be also annexed into the Reich despite the linguistic difference.[24]

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 28, 2018 at EST pm

    • One could argue that if Britain had let Germany (or the Soviet Union) become the master of an unified Europe, Britain would inevitably become a satellite of it.

      Koba

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

      • One could argue that if Britain had let Germany (or the Soviet Union) become the master of an unified Europe, Britain would inevitably become a satellite of it.

        Or he would have demanded they hand over their colonial assets.

        Or tested a German nuclear bomb over London.

        The point is the British would have their existence depend on what side of the bed Hitler got up on each day.

        Churchill was right that it wasn’t worth the risk to see what he would do with a Nazi Empire post-war, and the reassurances of Hitler apologist paleoconservatives decades later that Britain could live in peace with him are empty theorizing.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  6. Obama was entirely correct to remove the Churchill bust from the White House. That neo-con freak out annoyed me greatly. Churchill was a rather inept leader, responsible for much wanton death and destruction, and he has no useful connection to America. He was a shitty drunk who didn’t mind killing large numbers of his own people and foreigners for bad reasons.

    The accounts of his stay at the FDR whitehouse are hilarious, BTW. The guy was a barely functional alcoholic running on insane quantities of booze starting at breakfast. I doubt they covered that in the movie.

    bobbybobbob

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • He spent most of the movie drinking and smoking.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • Yeah….no

      Joe

      January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • Except the alcohol part – you’re right about that

      Joe

      January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • Hmmm – flawed he undoubtedly was, but that so-called “shitty drunk” was voted greatest Briton of them all.

      “….at the supreme moment, in May 1940, Churchill got it absolutely right.
      During the 1930s he had visited Hitler’s Germany and seen for himself the potential for evil there. Few people, either in the UK or the US, wanted to know, and he often had a problem selling his articles about the evils of Nazism to the press.
      And of course once he was in power, his superb speeches inspired the country and kept it going.”

      Why is it that some people feel obliged to attempt to tear down the great men of history? And when you look closely, these angry oafs seem curiously similar – they’re almost always nasty little progressive nobodies lashing out at the world.

      gda

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  7. In 50 years Hollywood will be as comfortable with Gulf War as it is now with WWII. I give you 100% guarantee.

    My Two Cents

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • And the “War in Afghanistan” will still be underway.

      E. Rekshun

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

  8. You need to learn how to smoke cigars.

    If you have never smoked much and you are over 45, taking up cigars is good for your health, as long as you don’t overdo it. Slows and averages out the heart rate, induces reflective thought, which is important, and for guys who are entertaining a pot belly it substitutes for that extra serving of home-cooked food.

    Also, many 30 plus women will be impressed by the fact that you know how to enjoy smoking cigars. Trust me.

    There are some good war movies where the soldiers pick out a pug dog on purpose as the unit’s mascot, because it looks like Winston Churchill, but I forget which war movies those were. It is not likely that anyone who lives in Hollywood understands Churchill. Did you know that of all the leaders of the major warring nations in WWII, he was the only one who did not take up a mistress? Did you know that? I knew that. So while the other war leaders were using wartime as an excuse to bang some woman not their wife, Churchill was acting honorably.
    If you don’t know that fact about WWII you are not going to understand a movie about national leadership in WWII.

    howitzer daniel

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • Nicotine has some pretty good side effects. It’s like really good caffeine. The other stuff in cigarettes and cigars isn’t so good for you. I enjoy both but try to keep my use minimal.

      everybodyhatesscott

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

      • I actually was chewing a little nicotine gum trying to get some of the psychic boost smokers seem to get. Made me dizzy and high instead. Still I kinda envy smokers’ focus when they come back in from their break.

        Mrs Stitch

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • Yes, temperance is super important for people who indulge in things that are bad for other people, with the intention to enjoy but not get addicted, and thus to avoid the bad statistics other people face.

        The risks from starting cigars when you are middle aged are much less than the risks from continuing to eat lots of kid stuff – Hostess Twinkies, processed cheap hot dogs, sugary cereals and sugary coffee drinks, potato chips – when you are middle aged or older.

        Cigarettes are weird. I only smoke them on nice summer days in order to get a little more energy to attune myself to the beauty of the season. Getting addicted to cigarettes is a bad idea for anyone younger than, say 60.

        That being said, I would rank – for middle aged American people who are not raising children -(for whom any addiction at all is a disaster) laziness as the worst major addiction, followed by alcohol, followed by porn and/or strip clubs, followed by tobacco. Except for people who have been using tobacco for years, they need to stop, if they don’t, well then their addiction is up there with the worst.

        howitzer daniel

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  9. Albert Finney did his Churchill turn a few years ago and all he did was drink, eat, fart, piss and shit. Yeah, he gave a few speeches too. It seems every British actor needs to do his Churchill turn. It’s a tic. Except for Christian Bale, who specializes in Americans.

    gothamette

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

    • I actually liked that version though I though Finney’s face was too rubbery and weird.

      Mrs Stitch

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • It had its moments but really, did they have to show him every time he performed a bodily function? I’m sick of this.

        gothamette

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  10. Weird subway scene. In real life Churchill did not care for “blackamores,” and walked out of a movie with black people in it.

    Hilariously, Wapo did a story about how we can’t like Churchill because he looked down on Indians like Gandhi, and it had an internal link to another wapo article about Gandhi that said he (Gandhi) was bad because he didn’t like black South Africans.

    Joe

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

  11. Churchill’s main rival was Edward Wood, the Earl of Halifax, who was the foreign secretary from 1938 to 1940 and favored a much softer approach toward Germany. He had only one hand.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    January 26, 2018 at EST pm

  12. “he decides to take a subway ride”

    I’m pretty sure this scene was made up out of whole cloth. It’s been a long time since I read the Manchester biography of Churchill, but I seem to recall Manchester claiming that Churchill never rode a subway — a byproduct of his posh upbringing. (I also recall Manchester saying Churchill didn’t know how toothpaste worked because someone always prepped his toothbrush for him. He was flummoxed when his brush wouldn’t froth.)

    I don’t understand the character of Halifax. He basically gets offered the position of prime minister, turns it down, and then spends the rest of his time undermining the guy who gets the position.

    I agree that the movie is a snooze in places.

    Oldman got an Oscar nom for this part because he is overdue for a Oscar win. It’s also an opportunity for the Hollywood establishment to prove to itself how broadminded it is. Oldman is one of the few publicly professed conservatives in the industry, and this movie presents a conservative icon in a favorable light.

    John D'oh

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

  13. Late film of Churchill in his dotage has, I suspect, been the model for actors.

    Clearly Churchill at 65 must have been a force of nature.

    Boris Johnson on Churchill’s rhetoric style:

    Eli Jenkins

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • Many thanks for posting this, a very enjoyable six minutes. One of the great pleasures of Lion’s blog is the quality of the readership and the posts they make, unparalleled in my experience. A thought. If Obama had been asked to talk for six minutes about Churchill, what would he have said? “Errrrrr…..” (crickets)

      The lioncub

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • That moderator is either a moron or she wants to get boned by Boris Johnson.

      Richard

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

      • Agreed.

        Eli Jenkins

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • Great clip, thanks.

      The anniversary of Churchill’s funeral was January 24.

      gothamette

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

      • PS – Related, do you have any plans to review Trump’s Davos performance? Even the naysayers admit that it was masterful. The shitstream media had to try to distract attention by running Melania articles but it didn’t work.

        gothamette

        January 27, 2018 at EST am

  14. Highly intelligent leftists in the UK believe that the country has always been a land of immigrants and was always multicultural. They refer to books and research papers written by their own kind that try to prove this. I’ve had a long email exchange with one such person, they won’t budge an inch. But as you say, there is no backlash against historically accurate portrayals of English society in the 1940s. War movies made in the 1940s and 1950s are very instructive from that perspective. The BBC don’t show any war movies any more, despite their ongoing popularity. But when you do find them on the TV, the whiteness and homogeneity they show is stark and highly revealing. Which no doubt is why the BBC won’t broadcast them. And because they are essentially jingoist and promoting nationalism and patriotism for a land almost entirely lost.

    The lioncub

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

  15. I agree it was a terrible movie and that Oldman overacted. Historical exposition was awkwardly shoehorned in at every opportunity (e.g. Parliamentarians griping about Churchill when he’s out of the room, reciting for us the key events of his career). Oldman played him like a doddering old man, mouth agape, lip quivering, and didn’t deliver the famous speeches the way I assume Churchill did. (However, note: You can hear these speeches as delivered by Churchill and they sound quite different, but this was how he read them afterward over the radio, not necessarily how he delivered them in the House of Commons, where they were not actually recorded. Then, too, there’s that controversy about some of the famous speeches having supposedly been read by actor Norman Sherry.) Equally irritating, the celebrated last lines of speeches were simply lopped off.

    Most irritating of all, of course, is that that subway enounter, Magical Negro and all, never took place. The entire scene — which a friend of mine said was the best scene in the movie — was entirely fabricated.

    Yet it’s predicted that Oldman will get an Oscar for his performance. Why? Because Hollywood loves actors working beneath a ton of makeup.

    Simon

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • I was disgusted by the subway scene. That enitire scene was a heap of ahistorical lefty agitprop c-r-a-p. Ruined the entire movie, which was very middling anyway.

      Old Prude

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  16. On Churchill, name me one great leader who wasn’t fallible. Humans aren’t blessed with perfect foresight and knowledge, and running an all-out war isn’t easy. Getting things right more than 50% of the time counts as success. For all his faults, Churchill was a great man. He wrote some great history books too! When we suffer from weak and foolish leadership, as we do now, people always hark for a Churchillian leader, but none can be found, they’re as rare as hen’s teeth.

    The lioncub

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • If Churchill had died in 1935 he would have been considered by historians an abject failure and emblematic of the sort of elitist, imperialist, incompetent conservative that historians love to hate. Up to that point his main accomplishments in political office were the British military disaster at Gallipoli, support for the vicious Black and Tans in the Irish War of Independence, gassing Kurds in 1919 and the disastrous return to the Gold Standard that almost wrecked the British economy in the 1920s. It is hard to think of any politician in recent times who managed to turn their reputation around as much as Churchill did.

      Peter Akuleyev

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

  17. “The movie is able to be nominated for an Academy Award despite not checking off SJW checkboxes because of the Hitler myth. Hitler and the Nazis are considered such great evil that it transcends anything to do with homophobia and stuff like that, and therefore they are allowed to portray a bunch of old white men as being good people who don’t harass women or discriminate against gays and blacks”

    I’ve read that the Russians were forced to appeal to old fashioned Rusisan nationalism when they were fighting the Nazis, rather than ‘defence of communism’. I guess the same applies retrospectively with the Nazis too.

    You’re the first person I’ve seen who has slated the film but I can imagine you are right. For a lot of people World War Two is the only history they know, and what they know is that it is the conflict that defined the modern world and their own tolerant values. So perhaps it seems all the more dramatic and worthy because of that.

    prolier than thou

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • Russians do not even call it WWII. They call it the Great Patriotic War and consider the rest of what was going on around minor peacekeeping activities.

      My Two Cents

      January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • “For a lot of people World War Two is the only history they know”

      The older I get, the weirder I find this to be. Like, the guy on the street has virtually zero knowledge about James K Polk and the Mexican-American war, but without that we don’t have California (no Hollywood, no Silicon Valley), Texas (no Keep Austin Weird), and most of the other interesting territory west of the Mississippi. Arguably a much bigger influence on the United States today than WWII. But we got into the war for more pragmatic and less idealistic reasons, so I guess it just doesn’t resonate.

      Jokah Macpherson

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • “For a lot of people World War Two is the only history they know, and what they know is that it is the conflict that defined the modern world and their own tolerant values. So perhaps it seems all the more dramatic and worthy because of that.”

      Not unintentionally, I might add. Studying Pre-WWII history is full of examples of decidedly non-liberal nations and societies thriving. It’s full of traditional wisdom that refutes conventional wisdom. Most Americans are curiously uncurious about their social origins prior to coming to America…

      Andy Byron

      January 28, 2018 at EST pm

  18. “The current trend for movies that take place in the past is to show the past as being full of racism, homophobia and misogyny. ”

    I would add undermining any non-/anticommunist or widely admired figure (historic or literary) with out-of-context statements or made-up events like the tube ride with kindly Blacks. That’s what the movie does in the service of neo-Marxism.

    Thus Jefferson is a child molester, Luke Skywalker a self-hating geriatric, and Churchill a dodderer.

    Robert

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

  19. I haven’t seen the movie. But what I can’t believe is that Churchill was extremely bad before the war. He was awfully bad after the war (ruining the UK into a completely paralyzed society) . How could he have been independly a hero ? I don’t buy it. I would love to know good history research about it.

    It’s like out de Gaule in France. During the 1st WW, he was one of the few guy caught alive by the german. As he was a “redactor” (like a Miller) for Petain, they invented a story that he and his team were caught becaus of soporific gas sent by germans ! In 1968, he left secretaly France by helicopter because he thought there were a revolution happening (for germany). So how on earth his going to UK in 1940, where he had be denied an official mission from the same Petain, would be an independant theroic movement ?

    History is really a field where power manipulates the data and “conspiration theory” is a word coin to paralyse all research. Then, I don’t have myself any explanation …

    Bruno

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

  20. Churchill was in debt to the tune of millions of dollars throughout the 1930’s. Those debts were serviced. Basically, he was bought off by the same banking interests that started World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution.

    Those banking interests were very concerned with Hitler’s potential threat to the Soviet Union and Soviet Communism so Churchill was directed to maintain a western front to weaken the onslaught against the Bolsheviks.

    The World Wars had very shaky pretenses for getting started. Archduke Ferdinand? Poland? None of that makes sense.

    Bankers want wars because they want to lend and manage money for sovereign entities. The interest rates are higher and there are fewer clients to deal with and to manage.

    map

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • Basically, he was bought off by the same banking interests that started World War I

      WWI was the Kaiser’s fault for starting no matter how more preferable he was to Hitler.

      The assassination of the Archduke was just an flimsy excuse to wage war on Britain, France and Russia to make Imperial Germany the dominant European power.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • Woodrow Wilson was the primary entity in pushing WWI.

        He financed WWI with $14 billion, at the time when the national income of the United States was $33 billion. Wilson was also a major representative of Eastern banking interests.

        map

        January 28, 2018 at EST pm

    • I didn’t know’about that. But the specialist of Churchill, Gilbert Martin, says a Jewish banker Skratosh who was editor of the economist, saved him from bankruptcy while orienting his stance against nazi Germany. That is not well known ….

      Bruno

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  21. [Of course it would be a huge rewrite of history to actually have women in those positions when historically there were none.]

    There were a number of female spies during ww2, Julia Child for example. She ended up marrying a man she met while working for the OSS.

    toomanyspiders

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

  22. I’ve read that the Russians were forced to appeal to old fashioned Rusisan nationalism when they were fighting the Nazis, rather than ‘defence of communism’.

    The Nazis on the other hand used the spectre of Communism to rally Catholic Germans who didn’t really like Nazis very much. The Nazis also managed to get French and Dutch Catholic conservatives to volunteer for the German Army to fight the Communist menace.

    Peter Akuleyev

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • The Nazis on the other hand used the spectre of Communism to rally Catholic Germans who didn’t really like Nazis very much.

      Polish Catholics didn’t fare so well.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • Hitler could have had a war targeting Russia only if he wanted it.

      All Hitler really needed from Poland to attack Russia was permission to use them as a base of operations, which the Poles would have happily agreed to.

      It was unnecessary to try to annihilate Poland as an anti-Communist tactic.

      The problem was that he truly did want total war of civilization, not simply attack Communism as his hero worshipers would have.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • The Poles never would have allowed German troops inside Poland because Poland was at that time still occupying the Polish Corridor. And if Hitler had proposed allowing the Poles to keep the Polish Corridor (a fundamental part of Germany Proper) he would have been immediately voted out of office.

        PerezHBD

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • The Poles never would have allowed German troops inside Poland because Poland was at that time still occupying the Polish Corridor. And if Hitler had proposed allowing the Poles to keep the Polish Corridor (a fundamental part of Germany Proper)

        First of all you lying scumbag, the majority of the Polish Corridor was ethnically Polish. Only Danzig was majority German.

        Second, Hitler said in private that the corridor was not his concern. The reason he made it an issue was to use to use it as an excuse to annex all of Poland.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 28, 2018 at EST pm

    • Some of the last bitter-enders fighting the Russians in Berlin were French SS troops.

      Dave Pinsen

      January 29, 2018 at EST am

  23. CAUTION: Strongest possible warning! What is seen cannot be unseen!
    Winston Churchill in too-tight bathing suit:
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • That was back when men could be real men without ripped muscular bodies.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • It should be illegal for men to have a body like this. I would fine him and put him into a rehab. He disgraced the the nation with his appearance.

        Yakov

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • I would fine him and put him into a rehab. He disgraced the the nation with his appearance.

        I think the real problem is the bathing suit.

        Otherwise Churchill’s lifestyle is admirable – he drank, ate, and smoked as much as he wanted.

        You would do well if your old age is as relaxed.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • By rehab I mean rigorous physical activity.

        Yakov

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • Winston Churchill’s demeanor was disgusting or what we call prolish.

        The Nazis were evil. But they were classy evil. The way Churchill carried himself was low class. He would twirl his hat with his cane as a way to show condescension.

        JS

        January 27, 2018 at EST pm

      • ‘Otherwise Churchill’s lifestyle is admirable – he drank, ate, and smoked as much as he wanted.’

        Don’t make me laugh now. This is a very stupid lifestyle. There is no advantage to drinking and smoking. Eating should be done in moderation. I’m running a half-marathon tomorrow – to me that’s a good life on a biological level. I would much rather give $100,000 to some poor saps in Africa than spend it on booze. This guy is depraved.

        Yakov

        January 28, 2018 at EST am

      • ‘The Nazis were evil. But they were classy evil.’

        Classy? What exactly was classy?

        Yakov

        January 28, 2018 at EST am

      • ‘That was back when men could be real men without ripped muscular bodies.’

        Don’t make me laugh now. The guy has a female body, is very poorly endowed, and is wearing a female swimsuit. This is a disgrace of the Brutish Empire. Looks real creepy.

        I’m not saying that he wasn’t a great personality, maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t, but I’m not talking about that now. If I had a body like that, I would just shoot myself. But obviously I don’t have it, so it’s a moot point.

        Yakov

        January 28, 2018 at EST am

      • The Nazis were sophisticated when it came to killing the people they didn’t like.

        Unlike the savage Japanese in WWII, who butchered anyone in their path — the Nazis were intellectual killing machines who devised a clean and efficient way of murdering people. They nicely rounded people up into one area and took care of business.

        The death camps were all planned out and built accordingly, and railroad tracks that lead to them were also planned accordingly.

        Their killing centers were all located in the east of Slavonia far away from civilization, inhabited by a majority of people whom we would call lumprenproles on this blog. If you ever travel to Poland coming from Germany, you can feel the proleness of Eastern Europe. Things just aren’t as nice and orderly when you compare it to Germany. The Nazis basically shoved all the people whom they deemed as undesirables into one region inhabited by other undesirables.

        The Nazis printed fake monopoly money that were legal tender, used subtle propaganda against their enemies. They used Hugo Boss to make their SS uniforms and the Fanta orange soda was a product of Nazi Germany (now a very popular soft drink throughout Europe and the US).

        So yes, the Nazis were classy in all of these things.

        JS

        January 28, 2018 at EST am

      • Don’t make me laugh now. This is a very stupid lifestyle. There is no advantage to drinking and smoking. Eating should be done in moderation.

        He lived to 91.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 28, 2018 at EST pm

      • There is nothing classy about the holocaust or the Nazis JS. Your comment is stupid and disgusting. How classy was Berlin or most of Germany in 1945? How classy is most of Europe today with hordes of Muslims that you decry and which country was responsible for that?

        “Prolish” Poland will look like paradise in a few decades if the EU doesn’t wake up to the reconquista happening in Western and Central Europe.

        Ivanthegrozny

        January 28, 2018 at EST pm

      • “If you ever travel to Poland coming from Germany, you can feel the proleness of Eastern Europe. ”

        On the other hand, if you travel to Poland coming from the US you will realize how prole large parts of the US actually are, and how much nicer rural Poland is than rural America. Much lower opiate and crystal meth use, women are thinner and better dressed, houses are in better shape.

        Peter Akuleyev

        January 29, 2018 at EST am

      • Put Trump in the same outfit and see how he compares. Ruffle up his hair, too, so we can see his bald crown. There must be an app somewhere that can do both. Oh, and another thing – Churchill got the Nobel Prize for Literature while Trump can barely read.

        Mister Triple 800

        January 29, 2018 at EST am

      • The Nazis were classier than Churchill and his Anglo gang.

        Ever watch German propaganda films regarding Britain during the Nazi regime? They depict English people as superficial and uncouth.

        JS

        January 29, 2018 at EST am

      • Yes, the Nazis had good looking uniforms. Now let’s stop talking about this topic.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 29, 2018 at EST am

      • Yes, they were made by Hugo Boss. Certain American retailers carry Hugo Boss, which is a high end brand. If they hate the Nazis, they should stop selling their clothing line and their accessories.

        JS

        January 29, 2018 at EST am

    • If ironrailsironweights posts immodest churchill pics and cute girls shooting guns videos, does that give me license to post cute animal videos.

      I’m reminded of the producers line: hitler could dance the pants off churchill!

      toomanyspiders

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • “|Don’t make me laugh now. The guy has a female body, is very poorly endowed, and is wearing a female swimsuit. This is a disgrace of the Brutish Empire. Looks real creepy.”

      I think this is just the way swimsuits were worn by Victorian men. Even the male body was rarely exposed.

      I take it you meant ‘British Empire’ although it turned out to be quite a good pun.

      prolier than thou

      January 28, 2018 at EST pm

      • I know, but Lion was setting this up as some lost ideal, so I needed to keep him in check.

        Yakov

        January 29, 2018 at EST am

      • The water was cold…

        Peter Akuleyev

        January 29, 2018 at EST am

    • As for that disrespectful “very poorly endowed” bit from the low IQ Russian below, you have to remember that the North Atlantic and the North Sea (whatever he’s walking out of) are very, very cold bodies of water. Some shrinkage or retraction is probably unavoidable.

      Mister Triple 800

      January 29, 2018 at EST am

  24. I just looked at google images of Churchill. At 21 he was a nice looking young man but by 29 the rot had started in.

    CamelCaseRob

    January 27, 2018 at EST am

    • Looks like when his hair started falling out he stopped caring.

      Richard

      January 28, 2018 at EST am

  25. Hitler may have been evil, but from the British point of view, Hitler wanted peace with Britain and apparently wanted to keep the British Empire mostly intact. By contrast, despite being allies, FDR and many other American elites didn’t like the British Empire and wanted it replaced with an American led order, which is basically what happened after WW2. The British Empire was reduced after the war through American pressure.

    Tom

    January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • Hitler may have been evil, but from the British point of view, Hitler wanted peace with Britain and apparently wanted to keep the British Empire mostly intact.

      He also at one point promised he would stop after Munich.

      If he was untrustworthy over smaller border issues in Central Europe, the British couldn’t take the risk that he would go back on his word to leave their Empire alone.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  26. I find it weird that virtually no one is talking about how two of the Best Film nominees are basically about the same historical event, albeit from different angles.

    Jokah Macpherson

    January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  27. The comments about the magical negro piqued my curiosity and I watched the scene. It’s even worse than I could have imagined.

    Not only does the magical negro help Churchill recite the poem Horatius, it is heavily implied that the negro is in a covert relationship with a white woman. Churchill remarks that “Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for”, the white woman responds “too right”, and she and the magical negro exchange knowing glances.

    Did you get all that? The point of this movie is that Britain not only had to endure, but had to win the war so that black men could freely be in relationships with white women. This is what your grandfathers fought for.

    JohnBeck

    January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • WWII is taught as the defeat of white people since the Nazis were “white supremacists,” That is why the left loves it. They believe it ushered in the world of diversity and integration. The push for anti-segregation and the criticism of the Indian predicament didn’t really start until after WWII.

      ttgy1

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • So this movie does in fact advance the idea that the Allies fought WWII for SJW reasons after all!

      Hermes

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • The push for anti-segregation and the criticism of the Indian predicament didn’t really start until after WWII.

      Another disaster that is entirely the fault of the Germans.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • The scene is also hopelessly misconceived in that Churchill at no point needed persuading that Hitler and his regime had to be fought – he felt that in his bones and had done so for a long time. He understood, even at a gut level, the nature of a totalitarian predator better even that Stalin who refused to believe that – like the frog giving the scorpion a ride across the river – Hitler would invade Russia.

      So the underground episode sacrifices a crucial element of Churchill’s greatness for cheap filmic thrills.

      Eli Jenkins

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  28. Irving is a Holocaust denier.

    Very credible history.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    January 27, 2018 at EST pm

  29. WWII is our foundation myth now according to the youtuber Black Pigeon Speaks. Nationalism became bad and diversity good because if you are a nationalist and view your country a one and white people as one another Holocaust could occur. Therefore, we have to flood Europe and the US with non-whites so whites won’t be able to have such power again. Of course, you can throw in slavery and the Indian plight in the US too.

    WWII was the catalyst for the white self-hatred that is taught.

    ttgy1

    January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • I believe this is also an antisemitic video since it doesn’t mention European colonial guilt.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 27, 2018 at EST pm

    • Open borders, multiculturalism, and the war on masculinity are all, in large measure, foolish and hysterical reactions to the Nazis.

      Lewis Medlock

      January 28, 2018 at EST pm

    • Open borders, multiculturalism, and the war on masculinity are all, in large measure, foolish and hysterical reactions to the Nazis.

      They are also the result of late 19th century European Nationalism and Militarism which led to WWI as well as Hitler, the Nazi campaign to euthanize the disabled (for budgetary reasons, they knew the disabled tended not to have children at a dysgenic rate), eugenics, European Colonialism, and the post-Colonial failure of many of Europe’s former colonies.

      Odd these other important reasons aren’t mentioned at all.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 28, 2018 at EST pm

      • True. Is nationalism good? Well, that depends. Is hunger good? If you are starving, than no, but if you are obese, than yes. Likewise nationalism that leads to genocide is not good, but when a nation is being destroyed by foreign invaders and globalist elites, nationalism is very good. What you really need is patriotism, but it’s not possible to strike that fine balance in real life so there will be excesses. Poland, Hungary and the Chech Republic are protecting their borders so far. For the rest of Europe for the pendulum to swing, nationalism has to have a revival. It’s either that or annihilation.

        Yakov

        January 29, 2018 at EST am

  30. “There’s nothing sociopathic about Churchill ordering thousands of [white gentile] men to their death in order to delay the Germans in their assault on Dunkirk. It was necessary in order to fight against Hitler…”

    There’s nothing more Oscar-worthy than glorifying the slaughter of white men.

    hard9bf

    January 28, 2018 at EST am

    • There’s nothing sociopathic about Churchill ordering thousands of [white gentile] men

      There’s nothing more Oscar-worthy than glorifying the slaughter of white men.

      But Hitler is better in hard9bf’s mind because he actually killed tens of millions of white gentiles, the Oscars only sometimes give awards for movie portrayals of the destruction Hitler was responsible for.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 28, 2018 at EST pm

  31. Who said Churchill was senile? Let’s go back in time and give him the MOCA test.

    Mister Triple 800

    January 29, 2018 at EST am

    • I didn’t say he was senile, I meant that he is PORTRAYED as if he were senile in the movie.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 29, 2018 at EST am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: