Churchill to Hitler

[Pinkkgaga]

So it’s trending on Twitter that people are comparing Churchill to Hitler and saying he was just as bad.
Absolutely disgusting imo, but I’d like to hear everyone’s thoughts on it.

“It is 1943, the peak of the Second World War. The place is London. The British War Cabinet is holding meetings on a famine sweeping its troubled colony, India. Millions of natives mainly in eastern Bengal, are starving. Leopold Amery, secretary of state for India, and Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wavell, soon to be appointed the new viceroy of India, are deliberating how to ship more food to the colony. But the irascible Prime Minister Winston Churchill is coming in their way.
"Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes.

Some three million Indians died in the famine of 1943. The majority of the deaths were in Bengal. In a shocking new book, Churchill's Secret War, journalist Madhusree Mukherjee blames Mr Churchill's policies for being largely responsible for one of the worst famines in India's history. It is a gripping and scholarly investigation into what must count as one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the Empire.”

From www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html

Would those who blame Churchill for the Bengal Famine be equally harsh on Jinnah for the deaths caused by Partition?

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place"

It is not just a case that Churchill was just as bad as Hitler. At that time Britain itself was on the brink there was ample opportunity and support for both wars to be fought a very different way. We must remember too that protection of the Empire and Britain's place as one of the Great powers also came into play ...the war wasn't primarily about humanity.

He, among others, won us the war. Maybe these people who are so intent on picking apart British history and holding us up as a paragon of evil should be thankful to him and the thousands of brave armed forces personnel who made their 'right to protest' and 'free speech' possible!

Still no correction on the claim that a twenty five year old Churchill established concentration camps in South Africa in 1900???

@Stonerosie67 agree! Hitler started a World war, whereas Churchill finished one.

@thatcarolebaskinbitch

Agree there's no point arguing who was worse, but imo Churchill really wasn't far behind Hitler so I'm not outraged by the accusations

That's an excellent point.

One set up an industrial killing machine which disposed of 6 million people.

The other defeated that regime.

Makes perfect sense to compare them, right?

The problem is that many people now get their history off social media. Even people with degrees will copy what they see there because they want to be seen as woke. It doesn't exactly lead to intelligent, rational viewpoints.

The Soviet Union was by far and away the single most significant protagonist in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and I doubt anybody would ever use that as a basis for claiming Josef Stalin was actually a decent human being.

@MockersGuidedByTheScience sorry I'm not glued to Mumsnet was just eating my lunch...
I'm not sure where the 'he' created came from it was supposed to say 'He said the concentration camps created in South Africa'.

This thread remind me of a poster on social media who was argued there was no difference between Bomber Harris and Gerry Adams.

I kid you not.

Well Harris killed by far and away more non-combatants than Gerry Adams and the IRA ever did. By some distance as well.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

The Soviet Union was by far and away the single most significant protagonist in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and I doubt anybody would ever use that as a basis for claiming Josef Stalin was actually a decent human being.

Why is the moral character of a country's leader relevant to the actions of its army?

This thread remind me of a poster on social media who was argued there was no difference between Bomber Harris and Gerry Adams.

You just have to ignore shit like this...you can't argue with absolutely fucking stupid.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Well Harris killed by far and away more non-combatants than Gerry Adams and the IRA ever did. By some distance as well.

Brilliant!

Bomber Harris defeated the Nazis.

Adams tried to defeat innocent British citizens and the army who were brought in to protect them.

Stunning logic there. I can see why you'd think they're the same.

@SuckingDieselFella

Why is the moral character of a country's leader relevant to the actions of its army?

Ask the poster claiming that the UK winning the war is somehow vindication of Churchill as a human being.

@Stonerosie67

But if you don't argue with absolutely fucking stupid, other absolutely fucking stupid people might think they have a point.

See above.

[quote XDownwiththissortofthingX]@SuckingDieselFella

Why is the moral character of a country's leader relevant to the actions of its army?

Ask the poster claiming that the UK winning the war is somehow vindication of Churchill as a human being.[/quote]
I asked YOU what the connection is.

You can't explain it, can you.

@suckingdeiselfella

*Brilliant!

Bomber Harris defeated the Nazis.

Adams tried to defeat innocent British citizens and the army who were brought in to protect them.

Stunning logic there. I can see why you'd think they're the same.*

If you're going to get all foamy about 'logic', then point out the inaccuracy in what I posted. I never said they were 'the same', simply that Harris and RAF killed far more civilians that the IRA ever have. That's a fact, nothing to do with 'logic'.

@SuckingDieselFella

*I asked YOU what the connection is.

You can't explain it, can you.*

I have no idea why you're asking me, since it's not a claim I ever made. My post was in response to a poster who did make that claim about Churchill. Perhaps you should ask them, like I suggested.

Blimey it wasn't that long ago Churchill was voted the greatest Briton of all time. How times change

Churchill did commit genocide

No he did not. I'm so sick of seeing this nonsense

ChaBishkoot
As your friendly neighbourhood historian, perhaps you could read this.

The young man in your link is being disingenuous in the first paragraph (or he hasn't done his research/he has copied statements from the left-wing press). He says;

"Speculating on why Obama might have done this, he [Boris Johnson] suggested—with more than a hint of Trumpian Birtherism—that this might have been ‘a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire—of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender.’

What Boris Johnson actually wrote in the 2016 article;

" Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire–of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender. Some said that perhaps Churchill was seen as less important than he once was."

In fact, BJ was simply referring to what other people had said/written about Obama, for example:

The Guardian 2008:
"Could Britain's colonial sins pose a risk to our relationship with the soon-to-be most powerful person on Earth?"
www.theguardian.com/world/deadlineusa/2008/dec/03/obama-grandfather-maumau-torture

Forbes Magazine 2010:
"Is President Obama Anti-British?"
"He has, it is argued, a hatred of British imperialism, which is why, rumor goes, he had a presentation bust of Winston Churchill removed from the White House, Churchill being viewed as a British imperialist archetype."
www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0809/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events-obama-anti-british.html

Telegraph 2011:
"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told a New York radio station on Monday that Mr Obama's youth led him to resent the West, which he said explains why Mr Obama's foreign policy differs so greatly from that of his predecessors."

"One thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, (is) very different than the average American," Mr Huckabee said, pointing to Mr Obama's decision in 2009 to return a bust of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8356132/Leading-Republican-claims-Barack-Obama-grew-up-in-Kenya.html

How accurate are the 'facts' in the rest of your link?

@MockersGuidedByTheScience

Still no correction on the claim that a twenty five year old Churchill established concentration camps in South Africa in 1900???

Churchill was 300 years old when he died.

He ran the British Empire singlehandedly from the age of just 3.

I think XDown's point is perfectly clear.

Plenty of posters here saying that Churchill was responsible for winning the Second World War and so it's okay to ignore anything bad he did.

So why doesn't this apply to Stalin? Whose country probably did the most to defeat the Nazis. We don't give him a free pass (and rightly so).