'Winston Churchill is no better than Adolf Hitler'

[Cherokee]

That, Sir, is a totally different debate.

No it's not . Atleast hitler killed people quickly.

 

[VCheng]

No it's not . Atleast hitler killed people quickly.

Both men were two of many on both sides whose decisions killed millions upon millions of people on a global scale. How can one call any of them more or less than the others in their respective roles?

 

[cleverrider]

How can one call any of them more or less than the others in their respective roles?

'Winston Churchill is no better than Adolf Hitler'

 

[Cherokee]

Both men were two of many on both sides whose decisions killed millions upon millions of people on a global scale. How can one call any of them more or less than the others in their respective roles?

That's the whole point. Churchill is no better than Hitler. WHile one is abhorred other is national hero.

 

[VCheng]

That's the whole point. Churchill is no better than Hitler. WHile one is abhorred other is national hero.

As I said before, the reason for that difference lies in the fact that Hitler led his nation to defeat and ruin, while Churchill led his nation to victory in WW2. They were leaders of their respective nations and answerable to their own people, and their remembrance is in light of the their end points.

 

[cleverrider]

That's the whole point. Churchill is no better than Hitler. WHile one is abhorred other is national hero.

He was too busy to make a particular point and got lost, Good thing is the conversation is in written format.

As I said before, the reason for that difference lies in the fact that Hitler led his nation to defeat and ruin, while Churchill led his nation to victory in WW2.

That is a different a point, and we all agree on that. The reference is more based on the killing of innocent people "the two leaders have equivalent amounts of “blood” on their hands". War/geopolitics/human nature/survival of the fittest call it whatever you may.

"Caught in the middle" heard of the phrase. That is what we are referring to.

 

[Cherokee]

As I said before, the reason for that difference lies in the fact that Hitler led his nation to defeat and ruin, while Churchill led his nation to victory in WW2. They were leaders of their respective nations and answerable to their own people, and their remembrance is in light of the their end points.

So if hitler would have won he would be a national hero. I seriously doubt that

 

[VCheng]

So if hitler would have won he would be a national hero. I seriously doubt that

Of course the Third Reich, had it been established after victory, would have regarded Hitler as a hero.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Usually I disagree with Shashi Tharoor, but Tharoor is right on this one, Britain stole the wealth of the British Raj.

The British did oppress the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists of the British Raj.

 

[Cherokee]

Of course the Third Reich, had it been established after victory, would have regarded Hitler as a hero.

I am glad you are comparing Third Reich with Modern Britain. That says a lot in itself.

 

[VCheng]

I am glad you are comparing Third Reich with Modern Britain. That says a lot in itself.

What comparison? Between Hitler's defeated dream versus post-war Britain? Not much to compare there, really.

Personal biases aside, the performance of both men cannot be separated from the duties imposed upon each by their sworn duties and how each led their nations to the end points that are recorded in history. One could even argue that the reason Churchill was forced to take the steps that he did were in response to the war imposed on Britain by Germany as part of WW2.

 

[Cherokee]

What comparison? Between Hitler's defeated dream versus post-war Britain? Not much to compare there, really.

Personal biases aside, the performance of both men cannot be separated from the duties imposed upon each by their sworn duties and how each led their nations to the end points that are recorded in history. One could even argue that the reason Churchill was forced to take the steps that he did were in response to the war imposed on Britain by Germany as part of WW2.

Then one would be semi-educated twunt. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

Please be a House N*gger elsewhere.

 

[T-123456]

When Churchill commands to use poisonous gases (which is prohibited war crime) to Turks , The lieutenant who got the command says to Churchill " Oh sir it is war crime and prohibited to use this gas to humans" , and Churchill says "The Turks are not human"

“...But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis—as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace.”
― Winston S. Churchill, The Story of the Malakand Field Force
Fvck Churchill!

 

[VCheng]

Then one would be semi-educated twunt. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

Please be a House N*gger elsewhere.

So you ran out of rational arguments and resorted to personal attacks. How predictable!

 

[Cherokee]

So you ran out of rational arguments and resorted to personal attacks. How predictable!

Argument in in the quote. You are just taking it personally because you have nothing else to say. You said about "one" and I responded to that "one" . If that one one was you than blimey I am surprised.