Zelensky definitely took notes

@@szigfridtomor270 This is a war, he's not going to stop demanding weapons until a ceasefire is actually signed and implemented. And if he's smart, he'll keep arming his country so it can be ready for the next time Russia decides to attack.

@@szigfridtomor270 He didn't “accept” anything, the war is still ongoing. Okay, disinformation agent?

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War.

That is what even Gandhi needed to note while negotiating via. non-violence with Brits. Long live Bose and Bhagat!

That's definatley a line you don't cross with this man.

How can you watch this movie without knowing about history?

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

​@@GreatPolishWingedHussars They didn't betray Poland, they declared wer on Germany after the invasion. You can say they betrayed Czech (but I'd say It's more to do with them being Naive about the success of their appeasement strategy). Now it's true that they mishandled the war at the beginning, but that's more of a strategic blunder than anything else.

@@mokied What you say about Franco-British behavior towards Poland in 1939 is wrong. Because that was a betrayal when they didn't attack massively in the west, as agreed with Poland before the German raid on Poland in 1939. Because this massive attack was the agreed strategy which would have ended the war quickly with a Polish, British, French victory. But in reality the treacherous strategy was not to fight at all and to declare war only for saving face. Because the British and the French did not intend to keep to the contractual commitment and to attack massively in the west. They wanted to sacrifice Poland for peace with the Germans! They preferred to bet Poland instead of fighting. This was the continuation of British and French appeasement stupid politics of the 30s! The inaction of the French and British was the message to Germany: Be satisfied with Poland. Do not attack us behind the Maginot Line and in the British Isles. We do not attack Germany either! Well the only thing that is true what you write is that tehy also betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1938 before but otherwise you deny the second betrayal of 1939 to Poland.

read some books about ww2, especially this prime minister. you will understand. It was hard time to decide not to surrender, you know at that time Nazi was really powerful

yeah! Am I right ? Cause I'm not sure. But seeing this film, I think Churchill have to make a tough decision not to surrender. I like to study history of the world, especially 2 big country I love : America and Britain.

No sir, but you can choke him to death on the way down.

That scene stuck in my head for a while when I rewatched it from the trailer.

Frank Lesher best line ever

Especially since he had been in the trenches, fighting alongside his men. So he knew first hand what the Great War had been.

@@Briselance He was not fighting in the trenches in WW1. Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and helped dictate war strategy. He did however extensively tour the trenches as part of his fact finding so he understood the sufferings of the troops.

@@OmegaTrooper He fought in three different conflicts at the turn of the century.

@@OmegaTrooper after resigning from the cabinet as scape goat for Gallipoli Churchill reported for service in the army. He was offered positions away from action but turned them down to serve six months at the western front, leading several operations into no mans land. In 1917 Churchill returned to government positions.

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

When does he say that?

@@obi-wankenobi1233 he says it just before the clip begins. It's in the same scene, but you dont get to see it in this specific video

@@jesselicon328 ah. Shame.

It gave me a little chuckle first seeing that.

Right I had the same reaction 😆

If i was winston. I would’ve hit him

@@kelsasnl1515 : that is what he wanted. These were old men and they were not going to give an inch. He wanted a reason to quit. Winston punches him, he quits.

History proved Hallifax to be both a fool and quasi traitor. If Britain sued for peace Europe would be lost.

@oneraceonedestiny listen carefully to what Churchill said in this scene. That is the truth.

The portrayal of emotion in that exchange is truly incredible acting by Oldman. See as Churchill seems to shrink against the door at the end, feeling the immense pressures heaped upon him. Stephen Dillane was also brilliant as Halifax throughout the movie.

Did the real Churchill scream, and yell all the damn time. This just feels cartoonish.

@@FormulaVase-kp3dc he was a very explosive man, and its a movie, its fun to watch

@@kriest3470 I suppose you're right.

@@FormulaVase-kp3dc Churchill was very prone to emotion (in a good way). There are caricatures of him as a petulant child and actual accounts of him portraying him as screaming and wailing, but his heart was almost always in a good place. And when it came to Gallipoli and the losses suffered there, on the other battlefronts of WWI, and later another world war, he felt those losses on a very personal level.

winston had a speech impediment as well, which attributes to occasional representations like this

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars You're absolutely deluded, and like many of the Polish nationalistic ilk, ignorant of history. The British did not have an army worth mounting a campaign in 1939. By the Fall of France, it only had 400,000 men in the field, against the 7 million strong German Army. In addition, France was in no position to wage an offensive campaign when its entire army was setup for a defensive war, with Germany, Italy and Spain encircling it. Even if the French attacked, and took some ground, the Soviets would have smashed you anyway. Furthermore, Poland itself was an aggressive nation, helping Germany to annex Czechslovakia. There was no betrayal, but merely political and military mistakes.

Absolutely agreed, Everybody's vocal mastery of their individual roles blew me away first time watching this

@@joebrady1694 Dillane did a spot-on Jefferson, from everything we know of him.

Stannis the Mannis thanks you

Gary and Steven are some of the best of their generation. It’s a shame Steven hasn’t been as successful as Gary he came to worldwide recognition mostly when he played Stannis in Game of thrones

His performance as Stannis was stunningly accurate and he didn't even care about the books. That's how good he is!

really ? I made him out right away. I was like "hey, that Stannis ? lol"

he played jefferson in hbo's john adams. well done.

It took until the end credits for you to realise he played Halifax? Lmao. Hard.

He was magnificent as Thomas Jefferson on HBO's John Adams. You should check it out if you haven't.

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

Who’s Halifax?حارق خيمة الآداب

@@shawnofdanaukota3843 the guy who was played by the actor who used to play Stannis Baratheon

@@shawnofdanaukota3843 The One true king of Westeros

@@shawnofdanaukota3843 the chap with the funny voice. who followed churchill into the corridor.

@@shawnofdanaukota3843 He was voiceroy of India at the time famous Salt Satyagraha of Mahatma Gandhi, His name is Lord Ervin,

But he'd let 3 million starve to death and many more genocides as well

If dieing at the bloody altar of your hubris means freeing a nation from a foreign invader than it is worth it. When did we stop listening to our own principles of freedom for all those who want it.

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

@@GreatPolishWingedHussarsno Britain should have stayed out of the war. And Poland should have negotiated and given up Danzig

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Germany didn’t have a two front war until 1943, if you think for a second France and Britain were in any position to defend Poland from the Germans and Soviets in 1939 you are deluded.

"If you do not permit further explo-W-asion of a peace ag-W-eement then you will have my W-esignation."

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars How is all this relevant to the actor doing a good job in the film?

@@khymaaren He does this to every comment on multiple videos

@@mrdoggy8801 It seems pointless. I wish him all the best but he needs a new hobby.

He would only have had to enter the room, the collective shame of those present would've set the direction and tone; take a look at the revisionist statements, emanating from the EU, "The guarantors of peace in Europe..."!

Stouffer you know that didn’t actually happen right? It was added into the movie.

Joshua Whitehead whoosh

James Stephenson as much as Churchill believed in the EU. [which he did]. He believed in democracy more and would follow the result.

@@ActuallyJamesS He believed in the principles of the EEC and what would become NATO. The EU and what it's devolved into? I fail to see him seeing any merit in a system where the people of Britain get to defer their fate to a group of unelected officials in Brussels. "Let Britain's fate be dictated by the British!" is 100% a Churchill sentiment.

Except it wasn't true, Hitler kept sending peace offers, he never got an answer.

@@rosesprog1722 the kind of peace you could have with someone as Hitler may very well be far worse then war.

@@perborjel7928 Google "Hitler's Peace Offers" if you want to know more, it's worth it.

Peace with that man? Look when they tried to appease that man. He took Poland then France. Betrayed the Russians. Peace was never an option for that sorry excuse of a man. Prime Minister Churchill could see it as plain as day.

@@royalanempire2965 Hitler considered the English to be of Aryan descent. He was not prepared to nor was he willing to subjugate England to German rule. He only wanted peace with England, and in fact an alliance with them against the Soviet Union. Churchill was a staunch anti-communist, so for him to refuse this was simply idiotic.

Chamberlains policy was the only sane policy available, Britain and France were in no position to wage war between 1936/38.

@Stouffer When were those on the right *ever* with the "ordinary people" pray tell?

@@paulallen8109 every day of the past forever

@@Infernal460"Britain and France were in no position to wage war between 1936/38" and whose fault was that?

Winston’s policy seemed to work out pretty well 😁

How about? "I was frozen today!"

Reminded me of TYWIN LANNISTAH

At least those countries don’t have oils. Then we will really be getting to the bullying part

@@redlizerad8268 - acturally there's oil there, not just in the country but on the sea they borders with, I suggest you do some research before talking about something you're ignorant at.

@@gendarrion911 well chap there’s oil in a lot of places. Just about how much there is available. Also I was just joking

@@dbfan17 Ok your first point is alright but are u telling me a country is the enemy of the world because it doesn’t respect America? That’s a bit arrogant

you are probably american and that is funny

It was a rejection of ww1 style warfare. Halifax after going through the hell of the Great War realised the pointless sacrifice of men to achieve Pyrrhic victories. There’s no doubt that he knew Britain would be able to continue the war and hold out but at what cost.

@@aussiegod4269 No one knew that Hitler would send 5 million men to invade the USSR after half of his air force was destroyed 😂 No one can predict that level of stupidity.

@@mebarkiimad8999 It was not stupid at all at the time. France was the great power and was beaten in 6 weeks along with the Low countries and a small British army. USSR was backwards and unstable, mass famine not long before this. Red army performance in Finland was pathetic. There is no reason to think this was a stupid move in 1941, it is ONLY historical hindsight that we can make those judgments today. One area I would call stupid was in how treatment toward the conquered Soviet population was dealt with.

@@Putseller100 you just made my point for me, why attack a hot mess of a country that couldn't penetrate Finland and is actively selling you all the raw materials you need. Why send 5 million people and your best equipment to the depths of the largest and coldest country on earth ??? All you're doing in unifying them. If USSR ever attacked Germany first (Which they would have never did) then Germany would've repelled them with their reserves.

At that point, considerably more so! Chamberlain backed Churchill at the critical moment in the cabinet crisis - the movie really overstates his pacifism. He'd been bamboozled good and hard by Hitler in 1937-38, but by 1940 he was much more hard line; and unlike Halifax, he did not trust Mussolini at all.

It's easy to call someone a defeatist when it's not your own children being sent to the slaughter. Seeing in 1940 that the British Empire stood pretty much alone against Germany, the cost of life would have easily been seen as a total sum of not just British causalities in WW1, but that of the French as well - and France paid one of the highest proportion of causalities in that war. Hindsight is always 20/20 but we mustn't forget that in that moment the memories of the Great War was deeply engrained in the minds of many.

@@george6977 "In 1938 Britain was unprepared for war with Germany." The thing is, though, so was Germany. It simply couldn't have won a European war in 1938.

@@richardmalcolm1457 And it didn't win a European war in 1939 either...

@@TchaikovskyFDR But it did. In effect, Germany won a continental war in 1939-40. It conquered seven countries, and drove a seventh clean off the continent with its tail between its legs. It was the equivalent of Napoleon winning the War of the Third Coalition. But in 1938, Germany would have been hard pressed to conquer Czechoslovakia, let alone France.

God be with you and help you, God protect you.

Long Live the Ukraine!

This scene should be shown to every appeaser in Europe

Thomas Jefferson arguing with Commissioner Gordon.

Merlin arguing with Count Dracula

...what?

Gary oldman: c kids its that easy

Doesn’t show many similarities with churchill’s behaviour and speaking patterns however

@@norm3844 ALBERT FINNEY WAS AMAZING

But the problem with shooting a dialogue scene like that is you would need A) a strong script and B) great actors. Luckily for Joe Wright, that's what he got.

Agree. I don't think you could have done it any other way with these two stellar actors in a heated arguement like this. Their close quarters in such a narrow corridor helps as well intensify the scene.

Was winterfell not enough for you?

Churchill wrote the line and he probably said it. I don't know if he said in exactly in this context. But it is a real Churchill line.

And Churchill was forced to resign. He got himself a commission as an officer and fought in the trenches himself leading men because he felt as if he needed to do something.

There was a much better opening at Alexandretta. The Sea Lord wanted to try and bombard the Turks out of Gallipoli so Istanbul could be attacked. Churchill was fully behind using Naval force to attack Gallipoli, but land forces were more Kitchener's idea rather than Hamilton, who didn't have the first idea what to do. If anyone is to blame, it's the British government as a whole. It was the thought the Turks would capitulate easily and that Constantinople would be seized quickly that drive the campaign, which is why the opening at Alexandretta (only a few thousand Turks were there and the British could've cut off communications to Syria and Palestine) wasn't taken. The Russians also vetoed a Greek offer of 300,000 troops for the campaign, but made no landing despite the fact the Turks moved guns from northern defences to the south

My great grandfather was at Gallipoli. It could have been successful if the combined fleet hadn't wasted time futilely bombarding the enemy batteries and letting the Ottomans prepare a strong minefield in the strait.

IratePirate the minefield had been there before the campaign, as Souchon's Goeben and Breslau had to be guided through. I think the Ottomans almost mined the straights, or did, during the Italo-Turkish war for the same reason.

It was armenian diaspora's proposal also...

Not just England my friend, the entire UK

Churchill was arrogant and never listened to other views That’s why the British nation lost the war Britain should have made peace and save millions of lives Britain could keep its empire Britain could force the Germans to give northern occupied France its autonomy back in return for peace Britain could have mediated a deal between Germans and Jews and facilitated transport of Jews from German occupied land to safety in Madagascar. Germany would invade Soviet Union removing the Bolshevik threat to Europe. There would be multipolar world of Britain America and Germany Instead of American domination and Britain having little autonomy as an American puppet like today. Etc

There weren’t nukes back then. The rules have changed

If the former allies are allowed to do that with "The Downfall", we can do that too.

That would be very fun to watch!

By the way, they wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

Except that Ukraine bombed the Donbass for years before Russia invaded.

@@newmanattackhmm i wonder what russia might’ve done 9 years ago that could have led to conflict in that region 🤔

Hmm. I wonder what the CIA did to bring about Zelensky's eventual rise to power?

@@thearmoredgoat2469 when the nukes start falling all over Ukraine i think will be when it stops being funny . But idk i can find funny in the darkest of places

Oh please

hamish hamilton really that's him??

It is, Stephen Dillane

Stannis would never accept terms, he would go on to the end!

A lamb with a navy and army, prime minister.

"Was Gallipoli not enough for you?!"

@@Dan-pf1jf "HOW DARE YOU?!"

All warlords have their stooges. Halifax was one of Hitler's.

In all fairness I think Halifax redeemed himself with his diplomatic work in America

He does also have a good point about avoiding an utterly unnecessary slaughter like the first world war again. He was clearly blinded by his narrow sighted focus on his disdain for that war (with good reason to disdain it) to realise that the circumstances of this new war were much different. Whereas the first was essentially an intra-continental spat of epic proportions, the rise of fascism and dictators meant this new war was a fight for the freedom of Europe, and that any peace now would be a death sentence in the long run. At least as he's portrayed here I'd say less spineless than he is just wrong in his assessment of the situation.

@@alexlyster3459 A good assessment of the situation, given the viewpoints acted out before us. Helluva movie with great actors all around. God bless Gary Oldman, his portrayal of Churchill reminds me of that ole saying: VICTORY HAS MANY FATHERS, DEFEAT IS BUT AN ORPHAN...🇵🇷🇺🇸😊

At that point in time The Great War was still in recent memory and Halifax like many others wanted to avoid another bloodbath. They don’t have hindsight we have now and appeasement policy did what it was intended allowing time to for military and naval industry build up. It’s hard to judge these people because in their mind another Great War would be a disaster and threatened the empire.

Plus it helps keep the opposition working with you. They know their side is being heard. If they think one party is acting unchecked, they will eventually refuse to cooperate.

Yes. Thats right.

J Sharp to acknowledge that he may not know everything and what you said and for something else that we can't think of, is his true genius.

They did Churchill had two votes of no confidence against him in 1942/43.

If he didn't do it he would've been hurled out of the cabinet by the opposing side

Oswald and Dracula, stellar.

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

And that one peacock

@@GreatPolishWingedHussarsThere were two main reasons for the Western Allies not launching an invasion of Germany in 1939- 1940. First and foremost, World War I had taught people it was better to defend than attack. Attacks are costly in equipment and men. Britain, but especially France, desperately wanted to avoid the mistakes of World War I. So every military plan, every military idea, and every action thought up or taken just reinforced this theory. France built the Maginot Line in line with this doctrine. Make Germany bleed themselves dry and waste massive amounts of equipment trying to break through superior Allied defenses. And with the British blockade like the last war, Germany would be forced to seek a settlement. Offensive operations were out of the question. Defending, inflicting massive damage on the enemy and forcing a peace was the only option, especially in the minds of the French. Second, the British had a well trained and equipped Army, but it was small, just like the last war. Britain relied on her navy. Britain's main goal was to blockade Germany and fight the u-boat menace. The British having the smaller army and it not being their land/ territory being fought on, let the French take the lead and followed the French battle plan. Sailing through the Baltic and reinforcing Poland with British troops was seen as incredibly risky. The last major fleet battle had been a unsatisfactory British victory and sailing important ships within air range of Germany itself was greatly feared. Simultaneously the British wanted to show the French they supported the Anglo-French alliance and the main priority was the u-boats and merchant raiders. Therefore the ships were needed elsewhere. Poland could have been helped more and probably should have been helped more, but large scale and grand attacks had been incredibly costly and mediocre at best during the last war. In the eyes of most military leaders, a defensive plan was best. A defensive plan was "guaranteed" to minimize casualties, and keep the majority of the fighting in areas where the Allies were planned and ready. Hindsight is always 20/20 and group think is and will always be an issue with bureaucratic planners.

Hitler never wanted to invade England With England he only wanted peace He only wanted to colonise the east

His peace proposals actually were entirely reasonable: Britain would keep its navy and empire/colonies and enter into an alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union. Instead Churchill chose to sacrifice the lives of millions

@Jillkews88 yh guaranteed by mussolini 🤣

LMAO

Churchill reminds me of somone who gives almost imposible work loads to be done in a certain time and then takers half the staff away, to do somthing else.

Well he got Irish people getting goosebumps by words from Churchill haha... Gary Oldman doesn't mess about, already a legend in his field. Deserved award but they don't represent the true worth of "praise" and respect the artists give us! *(Joke regarding Winston if anyone is too daft to get it)

When I read the news today, this scene popped into my mind. It’s scary how war movies, like this one, become a sort of horror when you’re faced with a real possibility of conflict, because you know this can apply to you personally . I guess it’s one of those things in life that you have to experience for yourself to truly grasp and understand it. Kinda makes me pissed at Hollywood for glorifying war and violence in the first place.

We still haven’t learned that lesson.

@Andrew Lloyd Wubba Lol, so that justifies the invasion of a sovereign country? Get bent

Was Gallipoli not enough for you!!!???

Also pissed of Australia and New Zealand. We don't need brackets to know about Gallipoli, we learn it early in school.

@@brendanpospischil3871 3x More British fought at Gallipoli than ANZACS but they try to take it as their own loss.

@@vostokcosomonaut5205 That's because they had more losses percentage and ratio wise. You forget that the Home Isles had a much higher population than Australia and New Zealand at the time.

@@Kardia_of_Rhodes I can understand that but they take it to the point of pretty much erasing any British or colonial support...

@@Kardia_of_Rhodes No they didn't, it was just the highest they'd lost up to that point.

theefrankguy And the favorite line of almost all the people who watched this film.

Mine too.

TonesTheGeek He was the Foreign Secretary. A Prime Minister is a first among equals and the Monarch is the Commander in Chief of military forces.

The PM is not the Commander in Chief.

The king is the commander and chief. The prime minister is the kings right hand man.

A lamb with a navy and an army.

i love the way he says that

maybe it was Winston Churchill trying to act like Gary Oldman !

Who supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War :)

@@rankociric8814 No, he didn't :)

"one of the finest human beings that ever walked on this planet"... and yet Churchill was voted out immediately after Germany's defeat. A grateful electorate speaks... I don't know what the lesson of that is.

​@delta6335 and he was elected again because the opposition wrecked the country in the interim.

They wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

Haha yeah it's a good scene.

Which doesn't really make sense because churchill wanted war and chamberlain gave it him

You cannot reason with a Russian, when your vodka is in its mouth!

By the way, they wouldn't have had this darkest hour if they hadn't betrayed Poland in 1939. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. After the war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But instead of massively attacking as was agreed, they betrayed Poland and holed up cowardly in the bunkers. Instead of attacking, they did the cowardly so-called Phoney War. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But instead Poland was betrayed!

I don’t think you’re wrong about Oldman’s acting chops, even though he wouldn’t have been my first choice. I don’t know if they would have been better, exactly, but I thought Brendan Gleeson played him well in the movie “Into the Storm.” And I think in terms of sheer ability, Anthony Hopkins would have done great.

And Dieppe, Mers el Kebir, the fire Bombing of civilians, the Bengal famine and many more, one of the worst criminals ever.