What's new

'Winston Churchill is no better than Adolf Hitler'

Churchill crimes ageing Indians will not make Hitler a saint neither the other way around.. Germany was humiliated by the crimes of their leader while British Churchill lead his people to victory so he becomes kosher .. But there is no major difference when it comes committing war crimes and crime against humanity .

The difference between Churchill and Hitler is that Hitlers cronies would have that lieutenant hanged for refusing to succumb to the Führerbefehl.
Churchill just muttered some debasing comment about Turks and followed the recommendation.
Fairly similar to the Gandhi comment.
Anyone think that Hitler would have hesitated having Gandhi tortured to death?



If You look at the Muslim reactions to a few drawings nowadays,
he is on to something.

And if you see the reaction of west to some false intelligence than I guess Islamic rulers were right to pick up arms against the invaders .. You invaded and slaughtered millions in several Islamic countries but yet you compare acts of criminal minded terrorists denounce by Muslim masses ,we don't elect them as to lead Islamic world .. This make us better than you
 
.
And there is nothing wrong with either fact, is there?
The only thing wrong I see is that no one mentions them at all.Like in New york the vast majority of People consider hitler a anti-semite a jew hater but yet he had a jewish girlfriend.To me he was more of a genocidal megalomaniac.

churchill on the other is overated he soiled his ladies underwear after the war with Turks.
 
.
No it's not . Atleast hitler killed people quickly.
there is a difference between a racist and murderous psycopath... churchill is a typical 'we are better than these people' racist and his policy reflected that... during wartime he had to make choices and he decided the lives of inferior people is.. well inferior than his own people.
thats totally different from hitler who proactively wanted to exterminate a race. The fact that both ended up creating mass death/suffering should not be used to equate them...
The issue is Churchill is lionized in UK and brits ignore the colonial bit of their history(many look fondly toward that glorified past), which they should not. The Hitler comparison and talk of reparation is silly.
 
.
Islamo-facists love Hitler.

Turks conduct genocide against minorities and Hitler takes inspiration from Turks to conduct his own genocide against the jews.

No surprises there.



https://armenianweekly.com/2015/10/30/hitler-ataturk/

Hitler, Ataturk, and German-Turkish Relations

By Edward Kanterian on October 30, 2015 in Featured, Headline, Interviews // 15 Comments // //

An Interview with Stefan Ihrig
Special for the Armenian Weekly

The following interview with Stefan Ihrig, author of Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler (due out in December 2015), was conducted by Edward Kanterian, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Kent. Ihrig is the Polonsky Fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.

***


Cover of Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler

Edward Kanterian—Mr. Ihrig, we know that Mussolini was a major role model for Hitler. But it is much less known that Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish Republic, was another major source of inspiration for Hitler. You have recently published a book exploring this. Why was Hitler interested in Atatürk?

Stefan Ihrig—It all goes back to the early 1920’s. Germany was still in shock about losing the war and afraid of a punitive peace treaty imposed by the Entente. In a mood of nationalist depression, events began to unfold in Anatolia that stirred the passion and dreams of German nationalists. Under Mustafa Kemal [Atatürk] the Turks were resisting their own “Turkish Versailles”—the Treaty of Sèvres. They took on all of the Entente as well as the Greek Army and even defied their own government in Constantinople. What was happening in Anatolia was like a nationalist dream-come-true for many in Germany. German nationalists, and the Nazis especially, thought that Germany should copy what the Kemalists were doing. Hitler was very much inspired by Atatürk and the idea of the “Ankara government” in his attempt to set up an alternative government in Munich in his Beerhall Putsch of 1923. Retrospectively, in 1933, he called Atatürk and the Kemalists his “shining star” in the darkness of the 1920’s. The Nazis and Hitler, in a political sense, had grown up with Turkey and Atatürk. It was a fascination that would not go away and transformed into something of a cult in the Third Reich.



E.K. —So the main attraction was the fact that Atatürk had resisted the Entente?

S.I. —Yes, resisting the Entente and revising a Paris peace treaty fascinated the Nazis. But this was not all. There was also the fact that Turkey had “rid itself” of most of its minorities, first of the Armenians during World War I, and second of most of the Greeks in the Treaty of Lausanne population exchange. And finally, for the Nazis, what was happening in Turkey in the 1920’s and 1930’s was a successful restructuring and reconstruction of the country along nationalist/racial lines. For them it was an example of what a purely national state could achieve under a strong leader.



E.K. —The Turkey which had “rid itself” of the Armenians was of course the Turkey of the Young Turks, whose regime ended in 1918 and in which Atatürk played only a minor role. So the Nazis’ fascination also extended to the Young Turks? Presumably they were attracted by both the Young Turks’ and Atatürk’s Turkocentric conception of the Turkish state, which excluded the multiethnic society that had existed hitherto in the Ottoman Empire? Is there any direct link between the demographic and exclusionary policies of Atatürk and that of the Nazis?

S.I. The Young Turks were not very important for the Nazis. But “ethnic cleansing” and the Armenian Genocide before the War of Independence was, for the Nazis, a major precondition for the success of Ataturk in that war. And the expulsion of the Greeks was a second precondition, in the Nazi view, for the further success of rebuilding Turkey along national lines. Both were for the Nazis something of a “package deal.” What was important for them was that the ethnic minorities—which they and other German nationalists perceived to be like “the Jews”—were gone. In the Nazis’ view of the New Turkey, all this would not have been possible had Turkey not “rid itself” of the minorities. In this fashion, the Nazis and other German nationalists were able to portray Atatürk’s New Turkey as something of a test case of large-scale ethnic-racial reconstruction—a test case that for them signalled the power of such a new national state purged of minorities; a test case that not only re-affirmed their own beliefs in the power of ethnically cleansed states but showed various ways of how to achieve this.


Stefan Ihrig (Photo: www.stefanihrig.com)

E.K. —To what extent was the Kemalist state ideology an inspiration to the Nazis? Presumably they ignored the fact that Atatürk aimed to build a republic in which the parliament, representing the people, was the main source of power?

S.I. —The Nazi vision of Atatürk’s New Turkey was a highly selective one. Almost everything that conflicted with Nazi ideals and goals was either downplayed or ignored. The emancipation of women was one such topic; it was mentioned in passing but not deemed more noteworthy. Atatürk’s rather peaceful foreign policy was purposefully misunderstood. When it comes to the state of government under Atatürk, the Nazis saw a powerful leader governing through a one-party system, which for them was the only viable alternative to what they perceived as decadent Western democracy.


E.K. —What was the Nazis’ attitude towards the “Armenian Question” in Turkey?

S.I. —In the Nazi discussion of the Turkish War of Independence the Armenians did not play a major role. Again, the Nazis had their own vision of Atatürk’s rule and times. What was paramount for them was post-1923 Turkey, which they portrayed as something of a mono-ethnic paradise. They simply refused to see any remaining minorities, such as the Kurds, for example, and the conflicts that still existed within the Turkish state. What made the Armenians, on the other hand, so important for the Nazi discourse on Atatürk’s New Turkey was the specific German tradition of seeing them as “the Jews of the Orient.”


E.K. —Can you give some examples how Armenians were seen as “the Jews of the Orient” in the German discourse? Was this something that happened only after the First World War or even before?

S.I. —This German tradition has its beginnings in the late 19th century. Around the same time as modern racial anti-Semitism gained ground, a perception of the Armenians as racially similar or equivalent to the Jews of Central Europe as portrayed in anti-Semitic discourse was put forward. The Armenians were typically described as exploitative merchants praying upon the kind and hard-working Turkish population. This perception mainly focused upon the perceived parasitic, treacherous, and non-productive behavior of the Armenians. That Armenians carried out all kinds of crafts and labor—that many were, for example, farmers—was simply ignored in these discourses. In the growing racial and racialist literature from the late-19th century up until the 1930’s, the Armenians were portrayed as a parent or sister race of the Jews. Often they were even described as “worse than the Jews.” This of course provides for a special German background to the perception of the events of 1915/16 that is particularly chilling in light of the further trajectory of German history.


E.K. —This brings us to your new book, which you have just completed, Justifying Genocide, which will be published by Harvard University Press later this year. How did you come to write this book?

S.I. —When carrying out my research on the Nazis and Turkey, I came across a large debate about the Armenian Genocide. This debate took place in the early 1920’s and is totally forgotten today. Yet, it was one of the largest genocide debates of the 20th century. It truly was a “genocide” debate, even before Raphael Lemkin coined the term, because it was all about intent and extent of the “annihilation of a nation.” I tried to reconstruct this debate and to find out why it lasted so long. You have to envisage a four-and-a-half years long debate including the first post-war discussions about what had happened, the heated reception of the publication of Foreign Office documents on the Armenian Genocide in 1919 already, a strong back and forth between those condemning what happened as a “murder of a nation” and others denying this. Furthermore there were assassinations, first of Talat Pasha in 1921 and then of another two prominent Young Turks in 1922, all of which took place in Berlin and were much discussed in the press of the time.

I wanted to see where all the discursive building blocks employed in these discussions came from, and thus I explored the German relationship with the Ottoman Armenians since the late 1870’s. As it turns out, since Bismarck’s time already the Armenians were assigned a very cynical role in German foreign policy: They were regularly sold out in order for Germany to gain political advantages and a more favorable position in the Ottoman Empire. This continuous selling out of another Christian people led to German discourses justifying mass murder already in the 1890’s, culminating in the propaganda during World War I as well as with shocking justificationalist essays during the debate of the early 1920’s.


E.K. —Hitler’s rhetorical question “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” made in August 1939, apropos the war of annihilation which he was about to start in the east, is well known. This suggests that Hitler was at least inspired by the Armenian Genocide. In your new book, you aim to demonstrate that the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide were indeed much more connected than previously thought. How exactly?

S.I. —The ongoing debate about recognition and denial has held the Armenian Genocide in a hostage situation for almost a century and has also led to it being often only a marginal footnote of broader European and world history in our accounts and analyses of the time. Yet, it was immensely important at the time, also and perhaps especially so in Germany. Not only was Germany closely connected to it as a state and an ally of the Ottomans, but so were many of its people as diplomats, officers, and soldiers. The fact that the Ottoman Empire had garnered so much attention in the German public and political sphere already before 1915 also connected Germany to the Armenian Genocide more closely. And finally, the great German genocide debate of the early 1920’s brings the whole matter within a mere decade of Hitler’s ascension to power. The Armenian Genocide was both chronologically and geographically speaking much closer to Germany and the Third Reich than is usually alleged; my book illustrates this in many facets.

‘As it turns out, since Bismarck’s time already the Armenians were assigned a very cynical role in German foreign policy: They were regularly sold out in order for Germany to gain political advantages and a more favorable position in the Ottoman Empire. This continuous selling out of another Christian people led to German discourses justifying mass murder already in the 1890’s, culminating in the propaganda during World War I as well as with shocking justificationalist essays during the debate of the early 1920’s.’

E.K. —There are not many German historians who have researched the Armenian Genocide. What might be the reasons for this?

S.I. —The topic continues to be one riddled with difficulties and potential dangers. If you are a historian working on Turkish and Ottoman history, you did not want to offend the very people you needed in order to get access to your sources. Another reason was that many of the German sources from the military archives were lost during World War II. Then there was the suspicion that broader discussions of the Armenian Genocide and its relation to Germany could be used to relativize the Shoah. And finally, the official Turkish denialist campaign has conveyed the lasting impression or rather has sown the confusion suggesting that the topic is just too difficult and unapproachable. However, in recent years many have worked on the German side, providing new studies on particular aspects and also providing new narratives. I am sure we will reach a critical mass in the field soon which will lead to a broader re-evaluation of the Armenian Genocide within German, European, and world history.
Actually Muslims condemn Hitler and his genocide of the Jews.

All Muslims hate Hitler.

Who would want to be on the wrong side of history.
 
.
The only thing wrong I see is that no one mentions them at all.Like in New york the vast majority of People consider hitler a anti-semite a jew hater but yet he had a jewish girlfriend.To me he was more of a genocidal megalomaniac.

churchill on the other is overated he soiled his ladies underwear after the war with Turks.


Those are known facts, but their importance is far outweighed by other achievements and shortcomings of the two men.
 
.
Actually Muslims condemn Hitler and his genocide of the Jews.

All Muslims hate Hitler.

Who would want to be on the wrong side of history.

Muslims do not hate Hitler rather many love him for committing genocide against the Jews. The only problem was Hitler lost the war and Jews got back their homeland thanks to the Allied forces.
 
.
'Winston Churchill is no better than Adolf Hitler,' says Indian politician Dr Shashi Tharoor
'Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does,' says author

Maya Oppenheim
@mayaoppenheim
Tuesday 21 March 2017 14:15 GMT
The Independent Online
shashi-tharoor.jpg

Dr Tharoor, a former Under-Secretary General of the UN, says the blame for the Bengal Famine rests with Churchill ROHIT JAIN PARAS/AFP/Getty Images
An Indian politician has said Winston Churchill is no better than Adolf Hitler and the two leaders have equivalent amounts of “blood” on their hands.

Dr Shashi Tharoor, whose new book Inglorious Empire chronicles the atrocities of the British Empire, said the former British Prime Minister should be remembered alongside the most prominent dictators of the twentieth century.

Dr Tharoor, a former Under-Secretary General of the UN, said the blame for the Bengal Famine rested with Churchill. In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.

“This [Churchill] is the man who the British insist on hailing as some apostle of freedom and democracy," the author told UK Asian at a launch for his book. "When to my mind he is really one of the more evil rulers of the 20th century only fit to stand in company of the likes of Hitler, Mao and Stalin".

“Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does,” the Indian MP said. “Particularly the decisions that he personally signed off during the Bengal Famine when 4.3 million people died because of the decisions he took or endorsed."

"Not only did the British pursue its own policy of not helping the victims of this famine which was created by their policies. Churchill persisted in exporting grain to Europe, not to feed actual ‘Sturdy Tommies’, to use his phrase, but add to the buffer stocks that were being piled up in the event of a future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia”.

“Ships laden with wheat were coming in from Australia docking in Calcutta and were instructed by Churchill not to disembark their cargo but sail on to Europe,” he added.
“And when conscience-stricken British officials wrote to the Prime Minister in London pointing out that his policies were causing needless loss of life all he could do was write peevishly in the margin of the report, ‘Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?'"
The 5 of the worst atrocities carried out by the British Empire
Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, the Prime Minister who led Britain to victory in World War Two, said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits
.”
shashi-tharoor.jpg

READ MORE
Britons suffer 'historical amnesia' over empire, says author

Dr Tharoor, a former Indian government minister, rose to further prominence after his impassioned speech at the Oxford Union in July of 2015 went viral. In the address, he discussed the economic toll British rule took on India.

He said: "India's share of the world economy when Britain arrived on it shores was 23 per cent. By the time the British left it was down to below four per cent. Why? Simply because India had been governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India."

"In fact, Britain's industrial revolution was actually premised upon the de-industrialisation of India."

Dr Tharoor recently gained headlines for suggesting Britons suffer "historical amnesia” over the atrocities and plunder committed by the empire.

Shashi Tharoor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...itician-post-colonialist-author-a7641681.html

Jinnah and Gandi sound more PRO British Raj then this guy.
Can someone find me article about Jinnah discussing atrocities committed by British Raj and did he ever ask British empire to pay for damages?
 
.
Muslims do not hate Hitler rather many love him for committing genocide against the Jews. The only problem was Hitler lost the war and Jews got back their homeland thanks to the Allied forces.
Don't talk bullshit.

I have yet to see any Muslim celebrity or Mullah praise Hitler.

In fact Muslim celebrities and Mullahs hate and condemns Hitler.
 
. . .
Don't talk bullshit.

I have yet to see any Muslim celebrity or Mullah praise Hitler.

In fact Muslim celebrities and Mullahs hate and condemns Hitler.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-mufti-rsquo-s-conversation-with-hitler

The Holocaust: The Mufti’s Conversation with Hitler
(November 28, 1941)

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the influential leader of the Arabs in Palestine, moved to Germany during World War II and met Adolf Hitler, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Heinrich Himmler and other Nazi leaders in an attempt to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies in the Middle East. The following is a record of a conversation between the Fuhrer and al-Husseini in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin.

muftihitler.jpg

The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear espressos in his public speeches. The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper: The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists. They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could he more useful to Germany as allies than might he apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would he quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian,Tunisian, and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany's victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause.

In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany.

The Mufti then mentioned the letter he had received from Germany, which stated that Germany was holding no Arab territories and understood and recognized the aspirations to independence and freedom of the Arabs, just as she supported the elimination of the Jewish national home.

A public declaration in this sense would be very useful for its propagandistic effect on the Arab peoples at this moment. It would rouse the Arabs from their momentary lethargy and give them new courage. It would also ease the Mufti's work of secretly organizing the Arabs against the moment when they could strike. At the same time, he could give the assurance that the Arabs would in strict discipline patiently wait for the right moment and only strike upon an order from Berlin.

With regard to the events in Iraq, the Mufti observed that the Arabs in that country certainly had by no means been incited by Germany to attack England, but solely had acted in reaction to a direct English assault upon their honor.

The Turks, he believed, would welcome the establishment of' an Arab government in the neighboring territories because they would prefer weaker Arab to strong European governments in the neighboring countries, and, being themselves a nation of 7 million, they had moreover nothing to fear from the 1.700,000 Arabs inhabiting Syria. Transjordan, Iraq. and Palestine.

France likewise would have no objections to the unification plan because she had conceded independence to Syria as early as 1936 and had given her approval to the unification of Iraq and Syria under King Faisal as early as 1933.

In these circumstances he was renewing his request that the Fuhrer make a public declaration so that the Arabs would not lose hope, which is so powerful a force in the life of nations. With such hope in their hearts the Arabs, as lie had said, were willing to wait. They were not pressing for immediate realization of their aspirations: they could easily wait half a year or a whole year. But if they were not inspired with such a hope by a declaration of this sort, it could be expected that the English would be the gainers from it.

The Fuhrer replied that Germany's fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated. was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine. which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the function of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.

Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England's capitalism and Soviet Russia's communism: actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle: on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilize all of England's power for their ends.

The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid. Of how little help sympathies alone were in such a battle had been demonstrated plainly by the operation in Iraq, where circumstances had not permitted the rendering of really effective, practical aid. In spite of all the sympathies. German aid had not been sufficient and Iraq was overcome by the power of Britain, that is, the guardian of the Jews.

The Mufti could not but he aware, however. that the outcome of the struggle going on at present would also decide the fate of the Arab world. The Fuhrer therefore had to think and speak coolly and deliberately, as a rational man and primarily as a soldier, as the leader of the German and allied armies. Everything of a nature to help in this titanic battle for the common cause, and thus also for the Arabs. would have to he done. Anything, however, that might contribute to weakening the military situation must be put aside, no matter hose unpopular this move might be.

Germany was now engaged in a very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. The difficulties were mainly with regard to maintaining the supply. Which was most difficult as a result of the destruction of railroads and highways as well as of the oncoming winter. If at such a moment, the Fuhrer were to raise the problem of Syria in a declaration, those elements in France which were under de Gaulle's influence would receive new strength. They would interpret the Fuhrer's declaration as an intention to break up France's colonial empire and appeal to their fellow countrymen that they should rather make common cause with the English to try to save what still could be saved. A German declaration regarding Syria would in France he understood to refer to the French colonies in general, and that would at the present time create new troubles in western Europe, which means that a portion of the German armed forces would be immobilized in the west and no longer he available for the campaign in the east.

The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti. enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:

1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.

2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.

3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come. Germany could also he indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.

Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov, it would he also the beginning of the end of the British world empire. He (the Fuhrer) hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. For the good of their common cause. it would he better if the Arab proclamation were put off for a few more months than if Germany were to create difficulties for herself without being able thereby to help the Arabs.

He (the Fuhrer) fully appreciated the eagerness of the Arabs for a public declaration of the sort requested by the Grand Mufti. But he would beg him to consider that he (the Fuhrer) himself was the Chief of State of the German Reich for five long years during which he was unable to make to his own homeland the announcement of its liberation. He had to wait with that until the announcement could be made on the basis of a situation brought about by the force of arms that the Anschluss had been carried out.

The moment that Germany's tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.

The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fiihrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard from the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible. secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer.

The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration.

The Grand Mufti thanked him for it and stated in conclusion that he was taking his leave from the Fuhrer in full confidence and with reiterated thanks for the interest shown in the Arab cause.
 
.
They are free to do that as they wish, but please keep in mind that there were many great famines before 1943, and even some major ones after India became independent. Singling out one will not achieve anything. After all, before getting upset at ships full of grain in Calcutta on their way to warn-torn Europe, people should also explain why provincial governments such as Punjab prevented shipments of grain from within India to the affected areas, or the affect of the Japanese invading Burma and cutting of rice supplies. Was that all Churchill's fault too?
We are judging Churchill and not Punjab govt. He should own his own deeds, punjab govt need to carry its own baggage. None can bail other out.
 
.
Don't talk bullshit.

I have yet to see any Muslim celebrity or Mullah praise Hitler.

In fact Muslim celebrities and Mullahs hate and condemns Hitler.

images

The Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler.
mufti.jpg

Then showing what he thinks of Nazism.
 
.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-mufti-rsquo-s-conversation-with-hitler

The Holocaust: The Mufti’s Conversation with Hitler
(November 28, 1941)

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the influential leader of the Arabs in Palestine, moved to Germany during World War II and met Adolf Hitler, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Heinrich Himmler and other Nazi leaders in an attempt to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies in the Middle East. The following is a record of a conversation between the Fuhrer and al-Husseini in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin.

muftihitler.jpg

The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear espressos in his public speeches. The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper: The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists. They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could he more useful to Germany as allies than might he apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would he quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian,Tunisian, and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany's victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause.

In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany.

The Mufti then mentioned the letter he had received from Germany, which stated that Germany was holding no Arab territories and understood and recognized the aspirations to independence and freedom of the Arabs, just as she supported the elimination of the Jewish national home.

A public declaration in this sense would be very useful for its propagandistic effect on the Arab peoples at this moment. It would rouse the Arabs from their momentary lethargy and give them new courage. It would also ease the Mufti's work of secretly organizing the Arabs against the moment when they could strike. At the same time, he could give the assurance that the Arabs would in strict discipline patiently wait for the right moment and only strike upon an order from Berlin.

With regard to the events in Iraq, the Mufti observed that the Arabs in that country certainly had by no means been incited by Germany to attack England, but solely had acted in reaction to a direct English assault upon their honor.

The Turks, he believed, would welcome the establishment of' an Arab government in the neighboring territories because they would prefer weaker Arab to strong European governments in the neighboring countries, and, being themselves a nation of 7 million, they had moreover nothing to fear from the 1.700,000 Arabs inhabiting Syria. Transjordan, Iraq. and Palestine.

France likewise would have no objections to the unification plan because she had conceded independence to Syria as early as 1936 and had given her approval to the unification of Iraq and Syria under King Faisal as early as 1933.

In these circumstances he was renewing his request that the Fuhrer make a public declaration so that the Arabs would not lose hope, which is so powerful a force in the life of nations. With such hope in their hearts the Arabs, as lie had said, were willing to wait. They were not pressing for immediate realization of their aspirations: they could easily wait half a year or a whole year. But if they were not inspired with such a hope by a declaration of this sort, it could be expected that the English would be the gainers from it.

The Fuhrer replied that Germany's fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated. was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine. which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the function of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.

Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England's capitalism and Soviet Russia's communism: actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle: on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilize all of England's power for their ends.

The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid. Of how little help sympathies alone were in such a battle had been demonstrated plainly by the operation in Iraq, where circumstances had not permitted the rendering of really effective, practical aid. In spite of all the sympathies. German aid had not been sufficient and Iraq was overcome by the power of Britain, that is, the guardian of the Jews.

The Mufti could not but he aware, however. that the outcome of the struggle going on at present would also decide the fate of the Arab world. The Fuhrer therefore had to think and speak coolly and deliberately, as a rational man and primarily as a soldier, as the leader of the German and allied armies. Everything of a nature to help in this titanic battle for the common cause, and thus also for the Arabs. would have to he done. Anything, however, that might contribute to weakening the military situation must be put aside, no matter hose unpopular this move might be.

Germany was now engaged in a very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. The difficulties were mainly with regard to maintaining the supply. Which was most difficult as a result of the destruction of railroads and highways as well as of the oncoming winter. If at such a moment, the Fuhrer were to raise the problem of Syria in a declaration, those elements in France which were under de Gaulle's influence would receive new strength. They would interpret the Fuhrer's declaration as an intention to break up France's colonial empire and appeal to their fellow countrymen that they should rather make common cause with the English to try to save what still could be saved. A German declaration regarding Syria would in France he understood to refer to the French colonies in general, and that would at the present time create new troubles in western Europe, which means that a portion of the German armed forces would be immobilized in the west and no longer he available for the campaign in the east.

The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti. enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:

1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.

2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.

3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come. Germany could also he indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.

Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov, it would he also the beginning of the end of the British world empire. He (the Fuhrer) hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. For the good of their common cause. it would he better if the Arab proclamation were put off for a few more months than if Germany were to create difficulties for herself without being able thereby to help the Arabs.

He (the Fuhrer) fully appreciated the eagerness of the Arabs for a public declaration of the sort requested by the Grand Mufti. But he would beg him to consider that he (the Fuhrer) himself was the Chief of State of the German Reich for five long years during which he was unable to make to his own homeland the announcement of its liberation. He had to wait with that until the announcement could be made on the basis of a situation brought about by the force of arms that the Anschluss had been carried out.

The moment that Germany's tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.

The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fiihrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard from the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible. secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer.

The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration.

The Grand Mufti thanked him for it and stated in conclusion that he was taking his leave from the Fuhrer in full confidence and with reiterated thanks for the interest shown in the Arab cause.

I do not think Al Husseini was aware of the genocide of the Jews taking place.

Had he known I'm pretty sure he would reject Hitler and the Nazis

images

The Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler.
mufti.jpg

Then showing what he thinks of Nazism.
Again,

I do not think Al Husseini was aware of the genocide of the Jews taking place.

Had he known I'm pretty sure he would reject Hitler and the Nazis

Hitler and the genocide of the Jews in Europe must be condemned from an Islamic perspective.
Without a doubt.

Nor do I see Al Husseini praising Hitler for the genocide of the Jews.

Stop talking bullshit.

I have yet to see any popular Muslim cleric praise Hitler.

All the Muslim clerics I know of, have criticized and condemned Hitler.
 
.
there is zero demand in India for such thing... Sashi is using this to have a civilized debate in a capacity as intellectual, not govt official.. and may be to sell few of his books.

According to article I posted Modi backed such call.

The hitler comparison does more harm than good to the argument, hitler literally tried to exterminate jews, churchil (...)

Hitler tried to exterminate Slavs and Jews and England did a lot to help him. English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did a lot to help Hitler and Winston Churchill also did a lot to help Hitler.

Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler:
chamberlain-hitler.jpg


Churchill helped Hitler conquer France:

<<But when the French troops moved in for the counterattack, i.e., in a forward direction, the British instead moved backward! “In the evening of the 25th Lord Gort took a vital decision. His orders still were to pursue the Weygand plan of a southerly attack towards Cambrai, in which the 5th and 50th Divisions, in conjunction with the French, were to be employed … Gort now abandoned the Weygand plan.”[2]

And so that was that – he simply ditched the plan! During the battle’s most crucial moment, British General Gort committed an offense that would normally result in an army court martial. Why did the British general break his oath at the most crucial moment? Well that’s the point, he didn’t break anything. His French commanders ordered him to attack, but his order to retreat came from London! General Gort carried out the instructions from his immediate British commanding officers and did not simply decide to relinquish his position without authorization. “Gort’s refusal to engage in the battle had Churchill’s full approval. However, in the days that followed, the British prime minister[3] continued to pretend that he agreed to have the British Expeditionary Force take part in the ‘Weygand counter-offensive.’ To desert an ally at the most critical moment of the battle but to still save face – that was the policy of the British Cabinet.[4]>>

Source: https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/...ned-the-death-sentence-for-france-in-1940-ii/

He was a good wartime PM, nobody can take that away from him... but british public quickly dumped him afterwards within 2 months, because they doubt his competence in rebuilding the country.

He was a mass murderer and you are calling him "good PM" ??
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom