The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by John Dx
More like the evil British empire falsely created the famine by stealing the crop and storing it on sea. To enslave the Indians and offered them to come and work with the family's and they would get fed once a day.

Sick evil racist and barbaric Churchill statue faces paliment today.

Clearly he could have desired to do what hitter did because he was born from a Jewish mother.

To justify evil you must be evil


This is a dead thread. Stop.
What a stupid question.
Reply 62
Original post by istt
The more one reads and examines the events of WW2 it is clear Churchill was the evil figure, not Hitler. Churchill showed throughout his life he had little regard for the masses, except, of course, when he needed their vote. He believed himself to be superior in every way, he was born to lead. So much of this deep insecurity came from his desire to prove to his father that he was a capable leader of men. He was a small, sickly child, his father did not want around. This insecurity persisted throughout his life, this need to prove his worthiness, which led to colossal risks both to himself and those he led. He led the UK into a brutal, senseless war with Germany. The bombing of German cities until they were nothing more than rubble. Bombs dropped on Germany were 10X what Germany dropped on its enemies. Churchill was brought back into power by a secretive Jewish group called The Focus. Churchill was ravenous for power and fame, so he readily carried out whatever plans were put to him. The UK had no need to go to war with Germany. In fact, Hitler greatly admired the British and had no desire to go to war with them. Numerous peace proposals by Germany to England were rejected by Churchill. Churchill, due to his own ego gratification changed the course of history. He decimated England and destroyed the British Empire.


Apart from the small troubling point that Churchill was not prime minister when the UK went to war.

Have you actually read anything about WWII written by those who prosecuted the UK war effort? Try reading say Viscount Alanbrooke's diaries but do not stop there, read what Marshall wrote, Eisenhower wrote even maybe read Churchill's own words. There are also commentaries aplenty.

Rather than ranting read some diaries, notes of meetings and forget the sensationalist and concentrate on the documented.

However that takes effort, determination, hours of study, so maybe just carry on lifting trash from the internet-after all you may already be operating at your optimum ability.
Reply 63
What an absolute load of tosh to compare Churchill to Hitler.

1] Hitler set out to eviserate jews/queers/blacks/gypsies etc. Churchill did not.
2] Do some basic math on this.

not to mention most of Churchills views were not particularly out of lockstep with general views of the day.
Reply 64
Reply 65


Is that meant to be some sort of answer?
History is written by the victors...
Churchill was somewhat representative of common views and beliefs back then. I think we forget in today's extreme leftist ideological climate that a lot of thinking back then was based in actual truth. For example science has confirmed as a matter of fact that race exists and has a biological origin. It has also confirmed that there are differences between the sexes and the things such as intelligence are hereditary.

At the time ideas about race and so on were not so well defined and there were plenty of flawed conclusions or self service notions. Ghandi was also quite racist by today's standards. Churchill was a bit more harsh than average but not so much so as the Nazis were. The artificially constructed mindset of the Nazis was quite awful when combined with their total rule over Germany.

It has been so difficult to establish a reasonable ideology on things such as race that today it has become fashionable to deny that such things even exist rather than to confront them.

Churchill had his hangups but there is also a lot of nonsense and exaggeration on this attempting to create a new narrative especially arising from Indian supremacy. Ironically some of that is retaliation for the mud slinging the British did in attempt to undermine Ghandi who himself had a lot of hangups.

But you know, we still have Ghandi statues too.... it's astonishing that this mud slinging is still a thing today for some people.
Reply 68
Original post by Asuna Yuuki
History is written by the victors...


No, it isn't.
Reply 69
I started reading this thread then saw a post by me. Then I looked at the date. 2011.

2011...
Original post by rohitbd
Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people

No he was not. The Bengal famine was caused by the Japanese invasion of Burma. This is like blaming Władysław Raczkiewicz for the Holocaust.
Reply 71
I see him as a war criminal, though not bad as Hitler. Anyway Britain is self faulth why Germany attacked her, she declared war on Germany first. I also consider german soldiers died in Operation See Lion as heroes.
Reply 72
Original post by slaven
I see him as a war criminal, though not bad as Hitler. Anyway Britain is self faulth why Germany attacked her, she declared war on Germany first. I also consider german soldiers died in Operation See Lion as heroes.


How many German soldiers actually died in Operation Sealion?
idiots, idiots everywhere...
Reply 74
Original post by DJKL
How many German soldiers actually died in Operation Sealion?


2585 aircrew killed, 925 captured, 735 wounded[12] and 638 missing bodies identified
Original post by rohitbd

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).


LOL

What a load of rubbish, the poison gas reference was from his time in the army where he documented the savagery of tribes in the Sudan (have a read it's grim), he said it's no different to use poison gas than it is to shoot someone in cold blood (is it really?). Indian starvation was caused by redirecting food supplies due to the Japanese invasion of Burma. Most writers at the time of the empire commented that the British Indian subjects enjoyed even greater liberties than the home population.
Original post by DJKL
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.


Where the hell does one get the one billion figure from? Was there even one billion people in the empire at the highest point of its existence?

Quick search tells me it was 458 million in 1922, most would be British Indians. Congratulations on being an idiot.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 77
Original post by slaven
2585 aircrew killed, 925 captured, 735 wounded[12] and 638 missing bodies identified


They are not soldiers.
Reply 78
Original post by George VI
Where the hell does one get the one billion figure from? Was there even one billion people in the empire at the highest point of its existence?

Quick search tells me it was 458 million in 1922, most would be British Indians. Congratulations on being an idiot.


I got a billion by referencing the original post I was querying, as you will no doubt possibly comprehend if you take a little more care reading the thread and considering the context of my post.

To be clear,though for most people such clarification would not be necessary, but perhaps for you it is required, I was hardly agreeing with the figure.
Original post by DJKL
I got a billion by referencing the original post I was querying, as you will no doubt possibly comprehend if you take a little more care reading the thread and considering the context of my post.

To be clear,though for most people such clarification would not be necessary, but perhaps for you it is required, I was hardly agreeing with the figure.


I quoted the wrong person.

Quick Reply

Latest