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.

@suckingdeiselfella

Do you still think there's a comparison between Stalin and Churchill? If so, can you explain what it is?

Sigh.......

Again, this is not a comparison either I or dreamingbohemian ever attempted to make.

The OP made the point that 'Hitler started the war, Churchill ended it'.

As dreamingbohemian also clearly explained, Stalin also played a significant part in defeating Hitler, but nobody uses that as an excuse to defend his character, or to detract from and minimise his other atrocities.

Nobody 'compared' Churchill and Stalin, it was a point about viewing 'winning' the war as somehow a validation of character.

Okay @Flaxmeadow, whatever helps you sleep at night.

As I said, there is so much denial and fear amongst some Brits to confront our past.

[quote XDownwiththissortofthingX]@SuckingDieselFella

*Correct, your points have nothing to do with logic.

At least you got something right.

I've met many German people and not one has ever equated the British army in WW2 with terrorism. I've never met one who has considered the Nazi regime as anything other than shameful. I've never met one who thought it shouldn't have been defeated. The only individuals who think the Dambusters were morally corrupt are woke English without two brain cells between them*

What on earth has the Dambusters mission got to do with anything?

The fact that German people don't bear grudges about the actions of their former enemies is totally irrelevant. It's not as if every German in the 30's and 40's was a rabid Nazi desperate to see their own country win the war in any case. That doesn't alter the fact that the destruction of residential areas was a deliberate act on the part of the RAF to kill and demoralise the German workforce, and diminish German war output through shortage of manpower. At the time, expedient and a prudent course of action to bring about the conclusion of the conflict, but it is what it is, i.e. the deliberate killing of civilians.[/quote]
I was responding to your point that Bomber Harris killed far more civilians than Gerry Adams. I even quoted the point you made. Do you have trouble following your own arguments?

"The fact that German people don't bear grudges about the actions of their former enemies is totally irrelevant". So you've taken it upon yourself to bear a grudge for them. You think you're better placed than they are to judge what they should or should be offended by. I use the word 'think' advisedly.

It is entirely focused on the West and the UK specifically.

I don't think that's entirely fair, there have been protests in a number of European countries, in Belgium for example where the spotlight has been on the record of horrific crimes in the Congo during Belgium's colonial past. There the target has been King Leopold.

There have also been protests in France, Australia, Germany and Korea - which I think you'll find is still in East Asia i.e. not the West!
And here is a source from Fox news so hardly a bastion of lefty values.
www.foxnews.com/world/george-floyd-blm-protests-take-place-on-3-continents

[quote XDownwiththissortofthingX]@suckingdeiselfella

Do you still think there's a comparison between Stalin and Churchill? If so, can you explain what it is?

Sigh.......

Again, this is not a comparison either I or dreamingbohemian ever attempted to make.

The OP made the point that 'Hitler started the war, Churchill ended it'.

As dreamingbohemian also clearly explained, Stalin also played a significant part in defeating Hitler, but nobody uses that as an excuse to defend his character, or to detract from and minimise his other atrocities.

Nobody 'compared' Churchill and Stalin, it was a point about viewing 'winning' the war as somehow a validation of character.[/quote]
Sigh...

Who has defended Churchill's character? Can you quote a single post in which anyone has said his comments about other races were defensible? Of course not. This is a pointless, straw man argument.

"Stalin also played a significant part in defeating Hitler, but nobody uses that as an excuse to defend his character, or to detract from and minimise his other atrocities."

Please explain why defeating Hitler was an atrocity.

@BovaryX

It's interesting, isn't it? People claim that BLM is a global protest. It is not. It is entirely focused on the West and the UK specifically. Its slogans aren't being sprayed in China or Peshawar. It emerged from a specific US context which is not replicated in the UK. UK and US policing isn't comparable. Yet the narrative asserts there is an umbilical cord connecting George Floyd's death in Minnesota to cops in London. And now, the spotlight has been turned on London's statues. In the face of a global pandemic which is killing people from Ecuador to India, wiping out industries, ruining people's businesses and lives, Churchill, Nelson and the entire cabaret of London's statuary needs to be swiftly consigned to a dumpster. This is guaranteed to cause division, anger, it seems like a calculated attempt to cause serious ructions. Is that the intention? Because to pretend it won't be the outcome is indicative of stupidity. Or mendacity.

Not that anyone much is listening, but this. Again.

Thanks Vivi0. I agree, the lack of historical awareness on this and other threads lately is quite something.

@suckingdieslefella

The point is that the Dambusters mission was not a deliberate attempt to kill civilians in the way that the carper bombing of German cities was, hence why I'm nonplussed by you bringing it up. It's not relevant to this discussion in any way.

The fact you think I'm 'bearing a grudge' on the behalf of Germans rather than making a factual observation confirms everything I suspected about you anyway.

StoneRosie67 agree wholeheartdly! We would have been "under the jackboot" so to speak .We have so much freedom of speech due to Mr C and our own army and the allies . Perhaps a visit to the excellent Imperial War Museum might be in order for some of our posters?(We went before Lockdown and it was so interesting and informative)

Churchill wasn't responsible for concentration camps in South Africa, he was a journalist. Neither was he responsible for the Bengal famine, that was due to a number of reasons, including the denial and miss-management by provincial government and the Japanese occupation of Burma, a main source of rice. A cabinet decision was made not to try and send food supplier because there was little food to send and few ships to do it with. However aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943, but effective relief arrived after a record rice harvest that December.

Hitler oversaw genocide on an industrial scale , conducted a racial war in the east with a loss of over 25 million lives and murdered 300,000 of his own countrymen ( altho he was Austrian by birth ).

Churchill was the only reason we didn't cave-in to Hitler in 1940 . That kept us in the war , provided the base for D-Day and saved the lives of 300,000 Jewish people in the British Isles.

To compare the two is offensive.

*Sigh...

Who has defended Churchill's character? Can you quote a single post in which anyone has said his comments about other races were defensible? Of course not. This is a pointless, straw man argument.

"Stalin also played a significant part in defeating Hitler, but nobody uses that as an excuse to defend his character, or to detract from and minimise his other atrocities."

Please explain why defeating Hitler was an atrocity.*

Oh for fucks sake I give up.

You have the reading comprehension skills of a pre-schooler.

Another load of nonsense pontificating about points nobody was trying to make.

@SuckingDieselFella

Stalin also played a significant part in defeating Hitler, but nobody uses that as an excuse to defend his character, or to detract from and minimise his other atrocities."

Please explain why defeating Hitler was an atrocity

I’m actually embarrassed for you.

@DGRossetti

There's a Netflix comedy special with an Indian comedian Vir Das, who briefly mentions Churchill from his countries point of view. In particular the Bengal Famine.

He isn't complimentary. But then again he isn't consumed with anger.

People who read history for its sake are not the kind who get angry on these things. They learn their lessons and apply them in their lives to change the future. We, in Britain, have somehow managed to put these figures on a pedestal even though our country is choking full of real, present day heroes. Then we get angry when the very core of our identity feels threatened. Well, our own faults for keeping the wrong statues up for so long. This is the damage these statues cause: in one symbol, they oversimplify the history and people lose perspective. Without perspective, we cannot make the future better and that is probably why people like Johnson will be so upset on losing the statue of Churchill: he symbolises what people like Johnson want us to symbolise. Not what we need. It also takes away accountability. In a country at the forefront of science and technology and progress, we are debating whether or not Churchill was the best Britain we ever produced. That’s the real question here.

Neither was he responsible for the Bengal famine, that was due to a number of reasons, including the denial and miss-management by provincial government and the Japanese occupation of Burma, a main source of rice. A cabinet decision was made not to try and send food supplier because there was little food to send and few ships to do it with. However aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943, but effective relief arrived after a record rice harvest that December.

So TL;DR Indians don't know their own history ?

Okay @Flaxmeadow, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Why would historical events which happened before I was even born cause me to lose sleep?

As I said, there is so much denial and fear amongst some Brits to confront our past

Why do I have to confront "our" (whatever that means) past? For what reason

@MaggieMay1972

Churchill wasn't responsible for concentration camps in South Africa, he was a journalist. Neither was he responsible for the Bengal famine, that was due to a number of reasons, including the denial and miss-management by provincial government and the Japanese occupation of Burma, a main source of rice. A cabinet decision was made not to try and send food supplier because there was little food to send and few ships to do it with. However aid increased significantly when the British Indian Army took control of funding in October 1943, but effective relief arrived after a record rice harvest that December.

Hitler oversaw genocide on an industrial scale , conducted a racial war in the east with a loss of over 25 million lives and murdered 300,000 of his own countrymen ( altho he was Austrian by birth ).

Churchill was the only reason we didn't cave-in to Hitler in 1940 . That kept us in the war , provided the base for D-Day and saved the lives of 300,000 Jewish people in the British Isles.

To compare the two is offensive.

I think the handy existence of the English Channel, the Home Fleet, and the RAF were a bit more of a factor in 1940 than Sir Winston to be honest.

[quote YounghillKang]It is entirely focused on the West and the UK specifically.

I don't think that's entirely fair, there have been protests in a number of European countries, in Belgium for example where the spotlight has been on the record of horrific crimes in the Congo during Belgium's colonial past. There the target has been King Leopold.

There have also been protests in France, Australia, Germany and Korea - which I think you'll find is still in East Asia i.e. not the West!
And here is a source from Fox news so hardly a bastion of lefty values.
www.foxnews.com/world/george-floyd-blm-protests-take-place-on-3-continents[/quote]
This. Hardly just here is it?

[quote XDownwiththissortofthingX]@suckingdieslefella

The point is that the Dambusters mission was not a deliberate attempt to kill civilians in the way that the carper bombing of German cities was, hence why I'm nonplussed by you bringing it up. It's not relevant to this discussion in any way.

The fact you think I'm 'bearing a grudge' on the behalf of Germans rather than making a factual observation confirms everything I suspected about you anyway.[/quote]
Thanks for taking the time to speculate about my character. There are always productive things to do even in lockdown and maybe you should investigate them. It's a characteristic of the far left to go for personal insults and attribute negative moral characteristics to anyone who calls them out. This is the 'kinder, gentler politics' or so we're told.

You aren't making a factual observation. I've explained this at length. The 'facts' you've read on social media and genuine, observable facts are two different things.

I'm sure you are nonplussed. You can't follow your own argument. Germans do not share your grudges about WW2. You are exercising grudges on their behalf because they suit your political stance and your innate hatred of this county.

He diverted food away (from Bengal in 43)

Source?

Sucessive viceroys and CinCs begged for extra food to be sent, but this was refused. Whether or not this was wise or just, there were reasons. The destitute people mostly ate rice and there was very little of that to be had. (There was a war on.) There was Australian wheat, but organising huge convoys of that would have been an invitation to German and Japanese subs to have the happiest happy time of the war. (There was a war on.) And if supplies had been diverted from Ceylon, East and South Africa etc, would Churchill then get the blame for famine there?

He was a racist. He delighted in very Johnsonian digs at Gandhi the 'half-naked fakir,' the pronounciation of which left you in no doubt. But, and I may have mentioned this, there was a war on, and in Bengal the Pro-Japanese INA under the pro-Nazi Bose, Indian National Hero today, was making inroads.

Maybe they should have asked the Japanese, Greater Asian Co-Propsperity Spehere and all that. Funny how they get none of the blame.

Belgium, Germany, France are all in the West.

@BovaryX I agree with you, I think this we need to question why this is happening now? During the pandemic?

[quote Vivi0]@SuckingDieselFella

Stalin also played a significant part in defeating Hitler, but nobody uses that as an excuse to defend his character, or to detract from and minimise his other atrocities."

Please explain why defeating Hitler was an atrocity

I’m actually embarrassed for you.[/quote]
I'm actually embarrassed you don't understand the point.

The previous poster's grammar is as poor as her argument.

Hitler oversaw genocide on an industrial scale , conducted a racial war in the east with a loss of over 25 million lives and murdered 300,000 of his own countrymen ( altho he was Austrian by birth ). Churchill was the only reason we didn't cave-in to Hitler in 1940 . That kept us in the war , provided the base for D-Day and saved the lives of 300,000 Jewish people in the British Isles.
What I find offensive here is how you have put ALL the responsibility of genocide on Hitler and put ALL the heroic deeds in saving Britain on Churchill. So he singlehandedly saved Britain and we didn’t have anyone else supporting him in that? But when it came to the Bengal famine, it was the fault of the locals?
That is deeply unsettling and a huge oversimplification.
No one is perfect and no one was perfect.
But if we don’t analyse Churchill, we won’t be able to fully analyse Johnson or anyone who follows. That is a huge loss, our future depends on having the right heroes.

It's a completely absurd comparison, like comparing cats and dogs and declaring them the same.

Belgium, Germany, France are all in the West

And Australia, whilst being in Australasia (not Asia, as was asserted) is a Western nation.