Is Churchill really a "Hero" or was he as bad or worse than Hitler?

Watch
rohitbd
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
Today in history we had too chose who we thought was the most evil leader throughout the 20th century and unsurprisingly most chose Hitler or Stalin, but as me and my friends were googling who we thought were the most evil we came upon this page.

"Who was worse, Hitler or Churchill?
Who was worse, Hitler or Churchill?
Hitler was responsible for deaths of 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, and millions of other people.
Also, he had concentration camps and was a racist, but he modeled his policies on another abominable racist, who inspired him and his crimes - on Churchill, and British rule of India (that Hitler intended as a model in his brutal oppression of the Slavs and Jews).

Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people, while British rule is responsible for genocide that resulted one billion of Indian lives lost. Churchill was unashamed racist, was in favor of use of poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" (Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews, and British used mustard gas on Iraqi women and children). British invented concentration camps in the Boer war, killing women and children. Hitler imitated British in every way, but racist theories and policies, implemented by Churchill in during and after WWI, and in WWII are of British origin. Hitler spared what he hoped to be his potential allies in Dunkirk, but Churchill believed higher race are British, not all Germanic people. He killed millions in firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and many other cities. Both Churchill and Hitler were in favor of eugenics.

Hitler was a kindly man, vegetarian who didn't drink or smoke. He suffered from flatulence.

Churchill was an ill tempered alcoholic, who smoked fat cigars and held his meetings in nude.

Roosevelt was against both Third Reich (that he fought against and helped Russians beat the Hitler) and atrocious British Empire (that, mostly thanks to Roosevelt, also dissolved after the WWII). He was a great US president, and is universally respected.

Death toll:

Hitler and Nazi Germany : 30 million (6 million in direct genocide)
Churchill and British Empire: 1 billion (7 million Indians in one genocidal incident alone, rarely mentioned today)

Both Churchill and Hitler were racists, for eugenics, use of poison gas and concentration camps, Hitler in fact emulated Churchill.

Yet due to propaganda, their images are distorted.

Both were clearly criminals. Can you objectively say which one was THE greatest criminal of the 20th century - Hitler or Churchill?
Clearly, both were racist, Churchill even to greater extent than Hitler, but Churchill managed to get his record cleared from history textbooks. Does that censorship make him a better man?"

I know that Hitler was a evil man, and this person calling him a kindly man has something wrong with him, but is our perception of Churchill totally wrong because before today me and most people though of Churchill as an inspirational leader who thought against racism, but this page begs to differ.
32
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
I presume the 1 billion is an estimate of the total death toll during British Colonial rule, from Clive onwards, and cannot be pinned solely on the period Churchill was Prime Minister? I presume you are not aggregating in earlier French control of parts of India.

If that is the case can we pin the deaths during the 30 years War on the German States, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, The Austrian Empire. Given Hitler occupied all but Spain,Sweden and Vichy France surely, to be equitable, these should be added to his tally.

Whilst I have no doubts Churchill was racist in the context of current Western standards, and was possibly even a degree racist by the standards of his day, you appear to be throwing a great deal at his administration without considering the crucial difference between him and Hitler. Intent.
5
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
(Original post by rohitbd)
Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people
No, he wasn't. The Indian famines were a result of administrative failures in the Indian civil service, not Westminster, certainly not from Churchill directly.

(Original post by rohitbd)
while British rule is responsible for genocide that resulted one billion of Indian lives lost.
One billion? LOL! Good one.


(Original post by rohitbd)
Churchill was unashamed racist, was in favor of use of poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" (Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews, and British used mustard gas on Iraqi women and children).
So, he wasn't a saint, but Gandhi was also racist, go rant about him.

(Original post by rohitbd)
British invented concentration camps in the Boer war, killing women and children.
No, they didn't. They coined the phrase concentration camp, and the women and children died of disease, they were not directly killed by the British. The Nazi's did directly kill their concentration camp prisoners.


(Original post by rohitbd)
Hitler imitated British in every way, but racist theories and policies, implemented by Churchill in during and after WWI, and in WWII are of British origin.
Yeah, racism was invented by Churchill. :rolleyes:

(Original post by rohitbd)
Hitler spared what he hoped to be his potential allies in Dunkirk, but Churchill believed higher race are British, not all Germanic people.
Oh how dare Churchill, that patriotic fool! :rolleyes:

(Original post by rohitbd)
He killed millions in firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and many other cities.
Millions? LOL! Again, you love exaggerating don't you?

(Original post by rohitbd)
Hitler was a kindly man, vegetarian who didn't drink or smoke. He suffered from flatulence.
Shame about the whole 'hating the jews' thing right...

(Original post by rohitbd)
Churchill was an ill tempered alcoholic, who smoked fat cigars and held his meetings in nude.
So from now on we should judge people by how sober they are?

(Original post by rohitbd)
Roosevelt was against both Third Reich (that he fought against and helped Russians beat the Hitler) and atrocious British Empire (that, mostly thanks to Roosevelt, also dissolved after the WWII).
No, the British Empire dissolved because the UK was almost bankrupt. Fighting two world wars in twenty years tends to do that to you.

(Original post by rohitbd)
Hitler and Nazi Germany : 30 million (6 million in direct genocide)
Churchill and British Empire: 1 billion (7 million Indians in one genocidal incident alone, rarely mentioned today)
No. Just no. I can catagorically tell you that you suck at maths. And by the way, a famine isn't genocide, no matter how much the Irish say otherwise.

(Original post by rohitbd)
Both Churchill and Hitler were racists, for eugenics, use of poison gas and concentration camps, Hitler in fact emulated Churchill.
Churchill = Concentration Camps
Hitler = Death Camps

See the difference?


(Original post by rohitbd)
Yet due to propaganda, their images are distorted.

Both were clearly criminals. Can you objectively say which one was THE greatest criminal of the 20th century - Hitler or Churchill?
Clearly, both were racist, Churchill even to greater extent than Hitler, but Churchill managed to get his record cleared from history textbooks. Does that censorship make him a better man?"

I know that Hitler was a evil man, and this person calling him a kindly man has something wrong with him, but is our perception of Churchill totally wrong because before today me and most people though of Churchill as an inspirational leader who thought against racism, but this page begs to differ.
We get it, you hate Churchill, but your argument is fundamentaly flawed in the fact that it is full of bull****. I mean seriously, one billion deaths? Who are you actually trying to kid?
52
reply
Sesshomaru24U
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
I just got to say the post above me just raped the entire argument that was presented XD
5
reply
Zionic
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
OP is on drugs.
0
reply
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
He was no saint, but he was no Hitler.
3
reply
Tenbinza
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
Completely agree with pot pot (for once :P).

Hitler was a kindly man? Churchill was a bigger racist than Hitler?

I haven't heard about Churchill writing books in which he claimed that Eastern Europeans were 'sub-human' and Jews were scum to be eliminated from the face of the earth.

Churchill was not responsible for every British act of colonial rule from 1800-1950, and the figure of 1 billion Indians is simply ridiculous. I assume that the 'killing of 7 million Indians' is mostly attributed to the famine described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943). This famine killed between 3 and 4 million Indians, and was at a time of massive crop failure in India just as Britain itself was facing huge merchant shipping destruction from U-Boats (crop failure began in 1938, most deaths however occured in 1943, hence the 1943 Bengal famine).

I personally fail to see how Winston Churchill could have prevented this famine on the other side of the world from Britain while it was engaged in the biggest fight for it's existence in history.
1
reply
rohitbd
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#8
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No, he wasn't. The Indian famines were a result of administrative failures in the Indian civil service, not Westminster, certainly not from Churchill directly.



One billion? LOL! Good one.




So, he wasn't a saint, but Gandhi was also racist, go rant about him.



No, they didn't. They coined the phrase concentration camp, and the women and children died of disease, they were not directly killed by the British. The Nazi's did directly kill their concentration camp prisoners.




Yeah, racism was invented by Churchill. :rolleyes:



Oh how dare Churchill, that patriotic fool! :rolleyes:



Millions? LOL! Again, you love exaggerating don't you?



Shame about the whole 'hating the jews' thing right...



So from now on we should judge people by how sober they are?



No, the British Empire dissolved because the UK was almost bankrupt. Fighting two world wars in twenty years tends to do that to you.



No. Just no. I can catagorically tell you that you suck at maths. And by the way, a famine isn't genocide, no matter how much the Irish say otherwise.



Churchill = Concentration Camps
Hitler = Death Camps

See the difference?




We get it, you hate Churchill, but your argument is fundamentaly flawed in the fact that it is full of bull****. I mean seriously, one billion deaths? Who are you actually trying to kid?
Hey thanks for clearing that up with me I was just quoting what I saw on another page, (I'm a noob when it comes to history) it wasn't me that made those facts up, the op of the other page did and people on that page believed that churchill was worse, its just that student room does not let me copy and paste links so Ill just type it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9030727AAN9Vyk

p.s. How was gandhi racist?
0
reply
Abbadon27
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
Pol Pot has got it spot on.
0
reply
PendulumBoB
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 years ago
#10
(Original post by rohitbd)
Hitler was a kindly man, vegetarian who didn't drink or smoke. He suffered from flatulence.

Churchill was an ill tempered alcoholic, who smoked fat cigars and held his meetings in nude.
:rofl3:
3
reply
Abbadon27
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
(Original post by rohitbd)
Hey thanks for clearing that up with me I was just quoting what I saw on another page, it wasn't me that made those facts up, the op of the other page did and people on that page believed that churchill was worse, its just that student room does not let me copy and paste links so Ill just type it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9030727AAN9Vyk

p.s. How was gandhi racist?
Gandhi protested repeatedly about the social classification of blacks with Indians, whom he described as "undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs"

I don't now true this is though, it may of just been propaganda.
0
reply
rohitbd
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#12
(Original post by Abbadon27)
Gandhi protested repeatedly about the social classification of blacks with Indians, whom he described as "undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs"

I now true this is though, it may of just been propaganda.
Wow if thats true, my perception of Gandhi was totally wrong.
0
reply
rY4uGD1fMzBj4xe2
Badges: 14
#13
Report 8 years ago
#13
So the American's were saints and the British and Germans were racists?

No prizes for guessing what nation wrote that site...
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
What a stupid question.
1
reply
Sofa Kineezy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 years ago
#15
Churchill was the allies hero, Hitler was Germany's Hero.
1
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 years ago
#16
I really don't understand the compulsion to split humans either into 'heroes' and 'villains', it is quite easily possible for generally good people to have bad qualities and vice versa. Churchill, like many other people, had good qualities as well as vices, but it may say something about him that he overcame those vices to do his part to save his country. Hitler may have liked children, but he still is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of them, Churchill did not order the extermination of any group of people, so enjoying a drink, cigar and bath during meetings doesn't make him the worse man.
5
reply
Munchies-YumYum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
Lets put it that way: he isn't as wise as he's portrayed. Nobody in politics is.
1
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 8 years ago
#18
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
And by the way, a famine isn't genocide, no matter how much the Irish say otherwise.
:hand: Not in all cases, many still understand that a lack of action to save someone isn't the same as a direct action with the intention of killing someone.
0
reply
Lady Gaga's Bottom
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 8 years ago
#19
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No. Just no. I can catagorically tell you that you suck at maths. And by the way, a famine isn't genocide, no matter how much the Irish say otherwise.
I was agreeing with you until you said that.
2
reply
Hanvyj
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 8 years ago
#20
(Original post by rohitbd)
Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people, while British rule is responsible for genocide that resulted one billion of Indian lives lost.
I don't know when this happened, but the estimated 1930s population was 2 billion. According to you he killed half the worlds population.
3
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your firm and insurance uni choices yet?

Yes (100)
53.76%
Yes, but I want to swap them (14)
7.53%
No, but I know who I want to choose (18)
9.68%
No, I still don't know who I want to choose (47)
25.27%
I have decided I don't want to go to uni anymore and will not be choosing (7)
3.76%

Watched Threads

View All